You are here

Archived: Magnolia House Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

This inspection took place on 15 June 2016 and was unannounced.

Magnolia House Residential Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the service.

Magnolia House Residential Care Home is required to 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. A registered manager was in place.

Staff were aware of the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures and their role and responsibilities in keeping people safe. Risks to people’s needs had been assessed and plans were in place to inform staff of the action required to reduce and manage known risks. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately and analysed for patterns and trends. The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and they were recruited through safe recruitment practices. People received their medicines appropriately; where shortfalls were identified immediate action was taken to make the required improvements.

Staff received an appropriate induction when they commenced their employment and ongoing training, support and development opportunities. Where gaps in staff training had been identified training was arranged.

The registered manager had processes in place to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). New documentation was being introduced to ensure mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions made were decision specific. People’s rights were protected and understood by staff.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and choices were offered, drinks and snacks were available throughout the day. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

The provider worked well with external health professionals and people received support to maintain their health.

Staff communication and interaction with people was good. People described staff as caring and kind. Staff treated people with privacy, dignity and respect. People had information about independent advocacy services should they have required this support. Information about the complaints procedure was available for people.

Staff had information available about people’s individual needs, routines and preferences. Whilst staff knew people’s needs this was not always recorded in detail. People received opportunities to participate in activities that reflected their preferences and interests. People also received opportunities with their cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor quality and safety. People received opportunities if they wished to share their experience about the service they received. The provider visited the service regularly but had not completed audits and checks but this was to be addressed by the provider.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was safe.

There were systems in place that ensured staff knew what action to take if they had safeguarding concerns. Staff had received safeguarding adult training.

Risks to people and the environment had been assessed and planned for. These were monitored and reviewed regularly.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the service. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs safely.

People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received an induction and ongoing supervision and training to enable them to effectively meet people’s individual needs.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood by staff. MCA assessments were not decision specific but immediate action was taken to correct this.

People received a choice of meals and drinks and were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink.

People’s healthcare needs had been assessed and planned for. The service worked well with visiting healthcare professionals to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met effectively.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate.

Staff were given the information they needed to understand and support the people who used the service.

Independent advocacy service information was available for people.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. There were no restrictions on friends and relatives visiting their family.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported to contribute as fully as possible to their assessment and in decisions about the care and support they received.

Staff supported people to pursue their hobbies and interests.

People knew how to make a complaint and had information available to them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was well-led.

Staff understood the values and aims of the service. The provider was aware of their regulatory responsibilities.

The provider had systems and processes that monitored the quality and safety of the service.

People and their relatives received opportunities to share their views about the service.