You are here

Archived: Marsh House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 June 2013
Date of Publication: 17 July 2013
Inspection Report published 17 July 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We carried out a visit on 13 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was also an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

Everyone we spoke with told us they had been asked about their views of the services provided at Marsh House. People told us they would be confident speaking to the home manager if they had any concerns about the service they received. One person told us, “[The manager] really wants you to know she’s there for you, she discusses everything with us” Throughout our inspection we saw that staff asked people for their views in an informal manner. As we moved around the building we saw the manager spending time chatting to people in the lounges.

We saw that the manager had good systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to check records were kept up to date. Monthly audits were completed on people’s care records, medication records, risk assessments and fire safety procedures. These checks made sure people continued to receive the care they needed and protected their safety in the home.

Annual questionnaires were sent to people who lived in the home and their relatives. Any suggestions or concerns raised on the replies were dealt with as soon as possible. Regular meetings were held for people who lived in the home and the manager told us, “They are well attended and very vocal”. We saw evidence that risk assessments, care plans, policies and procedures and routine systems were checked consistently and any issues looked at and the system reviewed.

Staff meetings were also held regularly with senior staff meeting with the manager on separate occasions.