Marsden Grange

Updated 26 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 18 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 26 March 2021

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Marsden Grange on 30 and 31 August and 4 September 2018. The first day was unannounced.

Marsden Grange is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people. Accommodation is provided in two separate buildings. One is the main house which accommodates 23 people over two floors and the other is a separate single storey building called Pendle Suite, which accommodates 17 people. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living at the home.

The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and we looked at both during this inspection.

At the last inspection on 28, 29 and 30 June and 7 July 2017, we found three breaches of the regulations. These related to the provider’s failure to assess and take appropriate action to reduce people’s risks, failure to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and a failure to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Following our inspection, the provider sent us an action plan and told us that all actions would be completed by 31 October 2017.

At this inspection we found that the necessary improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations reviewed.

We received mixed views about staffing levels at the service. Most people felt that there were times when the service was short staffed. The registered manager told us she had struggled to maintain appropriate staffing levels in recent months due to staff sickness, retirement and staff leaving. She showed us evidence that she had recently recruited two members of staff and was in the process of recruiting more staff to ensure that people’s needs were met at all times.

Most people felt that activities at the home needed to be improved. We saw evidence that the registered manager had recently sought people views and suggestions about activities and improvements were being made.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with understood how to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse.

Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training. People who lived at the service and their relatives felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

People told us the staff who supported them were caring and respected their right to privacy and dignity. They told us staff encouraged them to be independent and we saw evidence of this during the inspection.

People received support with nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were met. Referrals were made to community healthcare professionals to ensure that people received appropriate support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People told us that they received care that reflected their needs and preferences and we saw evidence of this. Staff told us they knew people well and gave examples of people’s routines and how they liked to be supported.

Staff communicated effectively with people. People’s communication needs were identified and appropriate support was provided. Staff supported people sensitively and did not rush them when providing care.

The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people living at the home and their relatives about the support they received. We saw evidence that she used the feedback received to develop and improve the service.

People living at the service, relatives and staff were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the registered manager and staff approachable.

A variety of audits and checks were completed regularly by the registered manager and the service provider. We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.