Archived: The MaltHouse

Updated 16 February 2016

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 13 January 2016; it was carried out by one inspector and was unannounced.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. At the inspection we asked the provider to tell us anything they thought they did well and any improvements they planned to make.

We spoke with six people and three relatives. We also spoke with nine staff which included the registered manager and the regional manager, as well as the cook and six care workers. We looked at five care records and five staff files. We also spoke with four healthcare professionals and contacted a representative from the local authority. We saw four weeks of the staffing rota, the staff training records and other information about the management of the service.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI).This is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 16 February 2016

This inspection took place on 13 January 2016. It was carried out by one inspector.

The Malthouse provided residential care for up to 33 older people. There were 29 people living in the home at the time of our visit, some of whom were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager who had been in post for four years. 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.

There were sufficient trained and competent staff to meet people’s needs. The home was fully staffed and there was a waiting list of potential staff who had expressed an interest in working in there. Staff were keen and motivated and told us they enjoyed their job.

People felt well cared for and the staff worked well as a team. Staff told us they were able to take time with people and they were taught they were a 24 hour service and there was no need to rush. People told us they were happy with the care they received and they were positive about staff. We saw staff being kind and respectful to people. People and their families told us they felt involved in decisions about their care. People had their privacy and dignity respected.

There were activity organisers seven days a week who were supported by volunteer staff. There was a varied programme of activities which included trips out, social events, crafts and quizzes as well as exercise.

People told us they were safe living in the home and had confidence in the staff. They told us they were enjoyed the food and were offered a choice at mealtimes, relatives were encouraged to join them.

Peoples had personalised care plans which were informative and indicated peoples likes, dislikes and preferences. People were provided with choices about all aspects of care and support they received. Staff were able to talk with us about people and demonstrated to us they knew people as individuals.

There was a clear management structure. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager who staff told us were supportive and approachable. There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service

Staff told us they had access to further training .The home was accredited with the Gold Standard Framework training which a nationally recognised training to ensure people received excellent end of life care. The home had good links with the GP surgery and staff attended their monthly meetings.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure there was good communication with people, their families and staff.