Marden Court is a residential home providing care and accommodation for up to 28 people. At the time of our inspection 25 people were living in the home. The inspection took place on 7 and 8 February 2017 and was unannounced.A registered manager was in post when we inspected the service. 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. The registered manager was present and approachable throughout our inspection.
Information around risks was not always available for staff to follow to ensure safe and effective care was given to people. This included appropriate assessments around behaviour that may challenge and pressure area care.
Infection control was not always managed appropriately to reduce the potential of risk. For example, two communal toilets were seen to be in an unclean condition. In addition the cleaning trolley was left unattended on two occasions with chemicals accessible to people.
People told us they felt safe living at Marden Court and were well looked after by kind staff who were available to help them. Comments included “I feel very safe. If I need anything at night they always arrive quickly”. Staff knew how to identify signs of abuse and their responsibilities in reporting and taking action around this.
We observed the mealtime experience for people which was unrushed and provided people with the appropriate support from staff that were available throughout. People told us they liked the food and were able to make choices about what they had to eat commenting “A good choice of food. A cooked meal every day” and “I have a bit of a job swallowing after being ill, I can’t manage hard food. The chef makes sure I have stuff I can eat”.
We saw that interactions between people and staff demonstrated person centred care was being given. People praised the staff describing them as kind, humorous and professional. Comments included “Staff are very caring, absolutely lovely”, “There is a very good atmosphere, you are not in the way but feel part of it”.
The recording in care plans and monitoring charts did not always detail the actions that staff had taken to support a person when a concern had been identified. For example, some people had been prescribed topical medicines. Administration charts were in place to record when these had been applied. However we saw that these were not being completed in line with what had been prescribed.
There was a mixed response to the activities provided. Some people spoke positively about the events on offer with comments including “Never bored, there are lots of things to do if you want them”. Some observations however showed that people were not always engaged in meaningful ways, however an additional new activity co-ordinator had been recruited.
Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home. However not all of the concerns we identified had been picked up by these quality monitoring systems and action taken to minimise the risks to people.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager’s leadership and told us she was available if they needed to see her. Comments included ‘The manager is very hands on, any problems get sorted” and “The manager is very good. She drops in and chats to me most days”. Staff also told us they felt supported by the registered manager who was approachable if they had any concerns to discuss.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.