We carried out a review of the data available to us about Merlewood on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Merlewood, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice
Staff received training in infection control and hand hygiene. A 'glow box' was installed to ensure correct hand hygiene practice was followed. To complete this training, staff would rub a gel into their hands and then wash their hands. Placing their hands under the 'glow box' would then highlight how effective their hand hygiene had been by illuminating areas where the gel had not been washed off.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) stations were set up outside peoples bedrooms so staff could put on and take off the PPE, to reduce the risk of infection being spread.
The registered manager wrote regular letters to people living in the home. The letters were updates on what was happening within the home to help ease any worries people may have had whilst they were in isolation.
Merlewood is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for to 53 people aged 65 and over, some who may be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 38 people were living at the service. Merlewood accommodates people across two separate wings. Both wings have their own communal lounge area. There are two dining areas for people’s communal use.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and that they felt involved in determining their own care and making their own decisions.
People said they felt safe living at Merlewood and this was mostly down to the fact they felt there were sufficient staff who checked on them. People told us they received the medicines they required and had access to healthcare professionals if they needed it.
Activities were varied and we received mainly positive feedback about these, particularly the trips out. However, some people did say they would like further choice. People’s care plans in general had good, detailed information. However, we found there was at times a lack of evidencing of the care that had been provided. Management told us this was due to the electronic care planning system still embedding into the service.
People gave positive feedback about the food they were offered and they told us they had no concerns about the cleanliness of the home. People said the manager led the service well. This was reiterated by staff who told us they felt supported and that the new manager had had a positive impact.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did support this practice.
Continual reviews of the service and care were carried out to look for ways to improve or change. Information was analysed and discussed with staff for learning purposes.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection we gave the service a rating of Good (the report was published on 14 October 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence 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.
The inspection took place on 13 September 2016 and was unannounced.
The last inspection took place 18 November 2013 when we found no breaches of Regulation.
Merlewood is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 53 older people. The service is managed by Elizabeth Finn Homes, a subsidiary of the charity Turn2us. They operate nine nursing and residential homes across England. Elizabeth Finn Homes provide care to professional people, and their families, who are residents or nationals of the UK or Republic of Ireland. At the time of our inspection 52 people were living at Merlewood. The accommodation was on the ground floor. Each bedroom had en suite toilet and hand wash basin and doors leading to the garden.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People living at the service were happy there. They felt their needs were met by kind, caring and polite staff. They were able to make choices about how they spent their lives and had consented to their care and treatment. Care plans were regularly updated and reviewed. People liked the food and took part in a range of social activities which reflected their needs and preferences. They felt safe and had their medicines administered in a safe way.
The staff were happy working at the service and felt well supported. They had the training and information they needed to be able to care for people. There were good systems of communication between the staff and they worked well as a team.
The service was well managed. There were systems to monitor the quality of the service and improvements had been made as a result of audits, checks and feedback from people living at the service. The manager had undertaken some innovative work to look at best practice guidance for supporting people.
We looked around the home which was clean and free from unpleasant odours. The home was on ground level and all the door ways and corridors were wide enough for wheel chair access enabled people to move around independently. All the room were single occupancy with ensuite toilet and hand basins. All the rooms had access in to gardens and grounds. We saw that individuals had personalised their room with photographs, books, TV's and pictures.
During our visit we spoke with five people who used the service, and we also spoke with four staff including the registered manager. We spent time observing how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treat people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner.
All the people we spoke with were complimentary about the home, one person told us that the care they received was "generally excellent and up to standard" and that the "staff were very good". Another individual told us that they "couldn't fault it" and that "'the food was good". However during our visit two people raised concerns about their experiences whilst at the home.
People told us that their consent was always obtained before carrying out any personal care.
We were told that people enjoyed the range of activities that were on offer. We were told 'It is first class' and that there was 'Always plenty to do.'
People were positive about their care and told us that all the staff were good. One person said that they thought the staff were 'First class.'
We spoke with four staff all of who were enthusiastic about supporting people. One carer told us 'I love working with the residents.'
We saw that people were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and there were regular infection control and cleanliness audits to monitor this.
People who used the service agreed that they thought staff were well trained. Most staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported, although supervision was not always viewed as supportive.
There was a complaints process in place with opportunity to make comments anonymously or in person. However, some people did not think that verbal complaints were fully resolved.
Some people told us they were self caring and only needed help with their medication. They said they were provided with the service user guide, and a contract of residency outlining costs and services which either they or their relatives signed.
People said staff are kind and are responsive to their care needs. They told us staff upheld their dignity when delivering personal care and respected their rights to privacy. One person told us they locked their bedroom door when they wanted complete privacy.
Some people told us they first entered the service as a respite client and then decided to stay. They told us they were impressed with the care and support they received from the staff and that they felt very safe and comfortable in the service.
People told us they were asked to sign the care plan to show they agreed with the proposed care documented.
People told us the service is always maintained at a comfortable temperature and that they had individual thermostat on their radiators which they are able to adjust. They told us the service is always clean and tidy with no offensive odours.
People said they felt safe in the service and they knew whom to speak to if they felt uncomfortable with a situation. They told us they would speak with the manager who would act on their behalf. They told us they had been provided with the service's service user's guide which contained information on keeping people safe, but they have never had to use it