Working at Amber House - Coventry
11 Moseley Avenue, Coventry, CV6 1AE
Operated by Emerald Care Ltd
15 bedsResidential homes
Workplace Score
4.9/10
AI analysis of latest data
Our AI workplace review
PlainSight AI Review
Last updated: 10 February 2026
Score: 4.9/10
Key Finding
"Enough staff with good recruitment and a positive team culture, but no permanent manager and safety risks like unclean areas hold it back."
Safety & Risk
4/10
!
The service was not clean, staff did not always wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) correctly and people were at risk of sustaining burns from uncovered hot water pipes. The provider and manager had not ensured CQC were notified of all events.
Staff Culture
6/10
✓
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager and the culture of the home. '[Manager] is very approachable, there is a good culture. We are a nice team here; everyone is happy and jolly.'
Staffing Levels
6/10
✓
There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure and carried out relevant vetting checks.
Training & Dev
5/10
!
Staff received training on how to keep people safe. This included moving and handling, fire safety and responding to healthcare emergencies. Per 2020 comprehensive inspection: A robust induction and ongoing training programmes were in place.
Management
2/10
✕
At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post. The provider did not have effective systems in place to identify and drive improvements within the environment of the home.
Programmes
6/10
✓
Per 2020 comprehensive inspection: People benefitted from a variety of activities, events and trips out... Activities available included arts and crafts, reminiscence sessions, pet therapy and visits from entertainers.
Points to consider
No permanent manager in post, and leaders missed notifying the regulator about some incidents.
At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post. The provider and manager had not ensured CQC were notified of all events they have a regulatory responsibility to inform us of.
Safety risks like unclean areas, wrong PPE use and hot pipes were not picked up by checks.
The service was not clean, staff did not always wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) correctly and people were at risk of sustaining burns from uncovered hot water pipes.
Only standard training like moving people and fire safety, no specialist courses or funded qualifications.
Staff received training on how to keep people safe. This included moving and handling, fire safety and responding to healthcare emergencies.
AI Generated
CQC Inspection Overview
CQC Inspection
Last inspected: April 2022
Requires improvement
Safe
!
Requires improvement
Effective
✓
Good
Caring
✓
Good
Responsive
✓
Good
Management Quality
Well-led: Requires improvement
Staff Reviews
Direct feedback from current and former employees
No one has reviewed yet. Be the first.
Scan the QR code or tap the button to chat with us on WhatsApp. Your identity stays completely anonymous.
Chat on WhatsAppSources
- Care Quality Commission (CQC) Inspection Data
- PlainSight staff reviews