Matthias House

Updated 24 December 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors 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.

Service and service type

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

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with three people who used the service and three relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with the provider, the registered manager, the deputy, two cooks and two members of care staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at training records, minutes of meetings and a number of quality assurance audits. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

Updated 24 December 2019

About the service

Matthias House is a care home that is registered to provide personal care and accommodates up to 33 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 31 people living at the home on the day of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe and were supported by sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff. Staff were aware of the risks to people and how to support them safely and in line with their care needs. People were supported to receive their medication as prescribed by their GP, by trained staff. Where accidents and incidents took place, they were responded and acted on appropriately and analysed for any lessons to be learnt.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were assessed prior to arriving at the home, to ensure the service could support them safely and effectively. People were supported by staff who felt well trained and supported by management.

People were supported to eat and drink and were offered choices at mealtimes. Regular drinks were offered to prevent the risk of dehydration. Staff were aware of people’s healthcare needs and people were supported to access a variety of healthcare services in order to help maintain good health.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and obtained people’s consent prior to offering support.

The provider had invested in improving the living environment for people and was committed to ensuring the environment was safe and comfortable and met the needs of the people living at the home.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them and described them as kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported them to make decisions about their day to day living. Where possible, people were encouraged to maintain their independence and for those who required it, access to advocacy services was available.

People were supported by a group of staff who knew them well, knew their likes, dislikes and what was important to them. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed, and staff kept up to date with changes in their care needs. Staff support people to take part in some activities, but plans were in place to recruit an activity co-ordinator to improve the range of activities that could be offered to people.

People had no complaints about the service but were confident that if they did raise any concerns they would be acted on and listened to immediately.

People, relatives and staff were complimentary of the service and considered it to be well led. The new provider had made themselves known to people and visitors to the service. Staff felt supported and listened to and were confident that the changes and improvements being introduced to the service would improve care delivery.

The registered manager and the provider had a number of audits in place to assess delivery of care and help drive improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 24 February 2017). Since this rating was awarded the registered provider of the service has changed. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.