You are here

Archived: Mersey Parks Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The inspection visit at Mersey Parks Care Home took place on 2 and 3 November 2016 and was unannounced.

Mersey Parks Care Home is a purpose built care home and provides care in four separate buildings on the one site. Each building can accommodate up to 30 people. One of the units provides nursing care and three provide residential care. The home provides nursing and personal care to older people and people who are living with dementia. The home is located in a residential area with good access to public transport. At the time of our inspection there were 103 people living at the home.

The service had a registered 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.

At the last inspection on 29 July 2014, we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations inspected.

During this inspection, we observed the administration of medicines at lunchtime. People said they received their medicines when they needed them. However, staff did not always administer medicines safely because records had not been completed in line with the service’s policies and procedures.

We made a recommendation about the safe administration of medicines and have been provided with evidence to demonstrate this has been addressed.

Medicines were safely and appropriately stored and secured safely when not in use. We checked how staff stored and stock checked controlled drugs. We noted this followed current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

We found staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe. There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who used the service were being met.

The provider had recruitment and selection procedures to minimise the risk of inappropriate employees working with vulnerable people. Checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed from discussions with staff.

Staff received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff had received safeguarding from abuse training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure.

People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People who were able told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were being met. We saw the management team had responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.

Comments we received demonstrated people were satisfied with their care. The management and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people who lived at the home.

Care plans were organised and identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

People told us they were happy with the activities organised at Mersey Parks Care Home. The activities were arranged for individuals and f

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was not always safe.

Medicines were not always administered safely.

Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely. Recruitment procedures were safe.

There were suitable procedures to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had the appropriate training and regular supervision to meet people�s needs.

The management team were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and had knowledge of the process to follow.

People were protected against the risks of dehydration and malnutrition.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was caring.

People who lived at the home told us they were treated with dignity, kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.

Staff had developed positive caring relationships and spoke about those they cared for in a warm, compassionate manner.

People and their families were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care that was person centred and responsive to their needs likes and dislikes.

The provider gave people a flexible service, which responded to their changing needs, lifestyle choices and appointments.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident any issues they raised would be dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was well led.

The provider had ensured there were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the management team.

The management team had a visible presence throughout the home. People and staff we spoke with felt the provider and the management team were supportive and approachable.

The management team had oversight of and acted to maintain the quality of the service provided.

The provider had sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff.