Archived: Marwood Residential Home

Updated 12 October 2017

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 29 August 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector, an inspection manager and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the Provider information return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we held about the service and information we had received about the service from people who contacted us. We contacted the local authority that had funding responsibility for some of the people who used the service. We also sought feedback from Healthwatch (the consumer champion for health and social care).

We spoke with five people who used the service and six relatives of other people who used the service; this was to gather their views. We spoke with seven members of staff including the deputy manager, a team leader, a senior carer, two carers, the cook and a domestic member of staff. We also spoke with the provider.

We looked at the provider's records. These included four people's care records, which included care plans, health records, risk assessments and daily care records. We looked at four staff files, a sample of audits, satisfaction surveys, staff rotas, and policies and procedures.

Updated 12 October 2017

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection that took place on 29 August 2017.

Marwood Residential Home provides accommodation and care for up to 24 people who are aged over 65. The home is located on two floors and has two communal lounges, a dining room, a large garden and a reading corner where people could spend time together. At the time of inspection there were 18 people using the service.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 30 June 2016, the service was rated as requires improvement overall. The recruitment procedures were not always followed, a member of staff was administering medicines without the appropriate training. People had restrictions placed on them without the correct process being followed and health professionals had not been contacted for advice in relation to concerns about a person's diet. The provider had not submitted all notifications they were required to. We found one breach of regulations. After the inspection the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to a breach in Regulation 11 Need for consent. At this inspection we found the service had made the required improvements.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected from the risk of harm at the service because staff knew their responsibilities to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff knew how to report any concerns that they had about people’s welfare.

There were effective systems in place to manage risks and this helped staff to know how to support people safely. Where risks had been identified there were actions in place to reduce these.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. The provider had safe recruitment practices. This assured them staff had been checked for their suitability before they started their employment.

People’s equipment was regularly checked and there were plans to keep people safe during significant events such as a fire. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.

People’s medicines were handled safely and were given in accordance with their prescriptions. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and had been assessed for their competency to do this.

Staff received appropriate support through an induction, support and guidance. There was an on-going training programme to ensure staff had the skills and up to date knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People received sufficient to eat and drink to help maintain their health and well-being. Their health needs were met by staff supporting them to access health care professionals promptly.

People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that assessments of mental capacity had been completed where there were concerns about people’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Staff sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People were involved in decisions about their support. Staff treated people with respect. Staff knew people they cared for and treated people with kindness and compassion.

People received care and support that met their individual needs and preferences. Care plans provided information about people so staff knew what they liked and enjoyed. People took part in activities that they enjoyed.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives.

People and staff felt the service was well managed. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service and identified areas for improvement.

People were asked for feedback on the quality of the service that they received. The service was led by a manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.