Archived: The Melanie Ann Trust

The Melanie Ann Trust Residential Home is a service registered for up to two people who do not require nursing care. It accommodates people with a learning disability and additional sensory impairments. The service is situated close to the Snodland town centre. There were two people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

The Melanie Ann Trust is a registered charity and operates another small service close by. Staff work across both services.

People had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy in their home by showing warmth to the staff that were supporting them. Staff were attentive and communicated with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for care and support. We observed staff supporting people with their daily activities.

The service had a registered manager, who was also the nominated individual for the trust. 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had been trained in how to protect people from abuse, and discussions with them confirmed that they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy and how to use it. They were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if this was needed.

Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions the staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in people’s best interests. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and showed they understood and promoted people’s rights through asking for people’s consent before they carried out care tasks.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and requirements of people using the service. Staff involved people in planning their own care in formats that they were able to understand, for example pictorial formats. Staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

People were provided with food and fluids that met their needs and preferences. Menus offered variety and choice.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints and relatives/advocates said they felt able to raise any concerns with staff.

Staff respected people and we saw several instances of a kindly touch or a joke and conversation as drinks or the lunch was served and at other times during the day.

People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests.

Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff.

Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service and the care they received. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the service was run.

Staff knew how to support people with their individual needs and were supported to take part in daily living skills and access the local community. A visitor to the home said, 'Thank you very much for supporting her and enabling her to meet up with friends'.

Staff supported people to maintain their health. A visitor to the home commented, The Trust ensures that any health issues are fully and promptly addressed and effectively monitored'.

People were offered a varied diet and their dietary needs were assessed and monitored.

The home was clean and procedures were in place to minimise the spread of any infection.

People were not protected by robust recruitment systems as a number of staff had been employed at the home with no references or only one reference, from their previous employment.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the home. Comments from visitors included, 'I was very pleased by your efforts to address the issues identified at the previous review meeting. It is clear to me that you have a highly committed team who value the people they support'; and 'Everything I have observed during my visits has been very impressive and incredibly person centred'.

We observed that people living at the home were relaxed and comfortable, for example by choosing whether to sit in the lounge or their room, or by approaching staff if they wanted something. We saw that people living at the home were able to express their choices verbally and non-verbally, for example using body language or signing to show if they wanted to join in an activity, and to indicate what their choices of food and drinks were.