You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 October 2017

Meyrin House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 18 older people. An unannounced inspection was carried out on 3 and 5 July 2017. Some people living at Meyrin House had care needs associated with living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 13 people were living at the service.

The home did not have a registered manager in place. However prior to the inspection taking place we had received an application from the current home 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.

Arrangements in place to keep the provider up to date with what was happening in the service were not effective. As a result, there was a lack of positive leadership and managerial oversight.

The manager could not demonstrate how the service was being run in the best interests of people living there. Systems in place to identify and monitor the safety and quality of the service were ineffective, as they either did not recognise the shortfalls or when they did there was a lack of action to rectify them.

Views about staffing levels were mixed and some people felt that there was not enough trained and experienced staff available to meet their needs. We also found that people or their families were not fully involved in planning and making decisions about their care. We found the service not to be responsive in identifying and meeting people's individual care needs.

Staff did not have the skills and experience, and they were not deployed effectively to meet the needs of people. We found that staff did not always have enough time to spend with people to provide reassurance, interest and stimulation. There was a lack of knowledge around supporting and caring for people living with dementia including understanding how it affected people differently and how each individual should be cared for to promote their wellbeing as far as possible.

The dining experience was varied as it did not meet all the people's individual nutritional needs. As a result, the manager was unable to demonstrate that people had enough to eat and drink to support their overall health and wellbeing.

Although some of the relatives told us that staff treated people with kindness and were caring, we found the way the service was provided was not consistently caring. Staff did not always demonstrate a caring attitude towards the people they supported and some failed to promote people's dignity or show respect to individuals. The majority of interactions by staff were routine, task orientated, and we could not be assured that people who remained in their bedroom received appropriate care to meet their needs. This also meant they were socially isolated as opportunities provided for people to engage in social activities were limited.

Whilst we were concerned that some staff did not always recognise poor practice, suitable arrangements were in place to respond appropriately, where an allegation of abuse had been made. Systems in place to deal with people's comments and complaints were not effectively being used. Records we reviewed confirmed this.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas



Updated 26 October 2017

The service was not safe.

People were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines because the manager did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely.

Although staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly and there were arrangement in place to keep people safe, not all people felt safe. People�s individual risks had not always been correctly assessed and identified.

The recruitment process was robust which helped make sure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people. The deployment of staff was not appropriate to meet the needs of people who used the service.

We found people�s medicines were managed and stored safely.



Updated 26 October 2017

The service was not effective.

The dining experience for people was variable and not always appropriate to meet people�s individual nutritional needs.

Improvements were required to ensure that staff�s training was effective and good practice was embedded through their everyday practices with people who used the service.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was not caring.

Not all care provided was person centred, caring and kind.

People and those acting on their behalf were not always involved in the planning of their care.

People were not always treated with dignity and respect.



Updated 26 October 2017

The service was not responsive to people's needs.

People were not always engaged in meaningful activities and supported to pursue pastimes that interested them, particularly for people living with dementia.

Not all people's care records were sufficiently detailed or accurate.

Staff were not consistently responsive to people's needs.

Arrangements were in place for the management of complaints however they had not proved effective.



Updated 26 October 2017

The service was not well led.

There was a lack of managerial oversight of the service as a whole.

The quality assurance systems were not effective because they had not identified the areas of concern.