Archived: Meteor Rest Home

Meteor Rest home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to a maximum of 15 people, some of whom may be diagnosed with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were fifteen people living in the service.

The service is required to and did have 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.

Staff delivered support effectively and care was provided in a way that intended to promote people’s independence and wellbeing, whilst people’s safety was ensured. Staff were recruited and employed upon completion of appropriate checks as part of a robust recruitment process. Sufficient numbers of staff enabled people’s individual needs to be met adequately. Qualified staff dispensed medications and monitored people’s health satisfactorily.

Staff understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe. People’s rights were also protected because management and staff understood the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The registered manager and staff ensured access to healthcare services were readily available to people and worked with a range of healthcare professionals, such as social workers, community mental health nurses and GPs to implement care and support plans.

Staff were respectful and compassionate towards people ensuring privacy and dignity was valued. People were supported in a person centred way by staff who understood their roles in relation to encouraging independence whilst mitigating potential risks. People were supported to identify their own interests and pursue them with the assistance of staff. Person centred social activities took place within the service as well as in the community.

Systems were in place to make sure that people’s views were gathered. These included regular meetings, direct interactions with people and questionnaires being distributed to people, relatives and healthcare professionals. The service was assisted to run effectively by the use of quality monitoring audits the registered manager carried out, which identified any improvements needed. A complaints procedure was in place and had been implemented appropriately by the management team.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the level of care and support they received at the service. They told us that they were treated well and were involved in making decisions about the services, care and support they received.

We found that people received safe and appropriate care, which was planned and delivered to meet their needs and protect them against risks of harm. Care delivery was regularly reviewed so that it was appropriate to people's changing needs and they were supported properly.

There were suitable arrangements for minimising risks of infection. The service followed current guidance around protecting people from the risk of infections and the premises were clean.

There were procedures for checking that the arrangements for receiving, handling and administering medicines were safe and effective. Staff ensured that there were sufficient medicines available and that people received medicines as prescribed for them.

We found that improvements had been made as needed to ensure that there were effective systems for monitoring and improving the safety and quality of the service. There were systems for testing and improving the safety and quality of the services provided. People were consulted and enabled to make suggestions as to how the service was managed and improved as needed.

We found that improvements were needed in the way that care and support was planned and delivered. Care plans and risk assessments were not updated regularly and information available to staff was inaccurate. Risk assessments were not regularly assessed and the level of risk reviewed. This meant that people using the service may not be supported appropriately.

We found that improvements were required in the arrangements for minimising risks of infection. The service was not following current guidance around protecting people from the risk of infections such as using and monitoring cleaning schedules within the service.

Improvements were required so as to minimise risks associated with medicines. There were no procedures for checking that the arrangements for receiving, handling and administering medicines were safe and effective. We saw that staff did not always ensure that there were sufficient medicines available.

Staff told us that they had enough time to care for and support people appropriately. Records we viewed showed that staffing levels were maintained and reviewed regularly to ensure that they were appropriate.

Improvements were needed to ensure that there were effective systems for monitoring and improving the safety and quality of the service.

People said that they felt safe and staff treated them well. We found that staff were trained to identify risks of abuse and they understood their responsibilities to minimise these risks and to report any concerns appropriately.

People told us that staff met their needs and cared for them well. We saw that there were appropriate numbers of skilled, qualified and experienced staff available to meet the needs of people who were living in Meteor Rest Home.

There were effective systems in place to regularly monitor, and improve where necessary the services provided. People told us that they were very happy living at the care home and that their comments and suggestions for improvement were acted upon.