Merlin Manor Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people andtreated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. 

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were respectful in their interactions and demonstrated a caring approach that helped people feel valued and at ease. Staff built positive relationships with people and demonstrated empathy in their approach. For example, staff were observed sitting with people who were distressed, providing reassurance and calm support, and involving them in decisions about their care wherever possible. People consistently told us staff were “kind,” “supportive” and treated them well, and we observed staff interacting with people in a friendly, respectful and unhurried manner. Relatives and professionals described staff as “compassionate” who often went “above and beyond,” and people told us they felt valued and respected.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure the care, support and treatment offered met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff valued everyone’s opinions. People’s individuality was respected, and staff encouraged choice in daily routines such as meals and activities. Relatives told us staff were approachable and responsive to concerns.

Staff promoted people’s independence. They made sure people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to make day‑to‑day decisions about their lives, including how and when they received support. People were encouraged to do tasks for themselves where possible, with staff offering assistance only when needed. People were involved in decisions about their care and were given information in a way they could understand. Staff respected people’s wishes and supported them to do as much for themselves as they were able, promoting confidence and autonomy.

While staff understood people’s needs and worked with healthcare professionals to address changes in condition, this was not consistently achieved in practice due to staffing pressures and delays in response. Feedback from people highlighted variable response times, with call bells “sometimes quick, sometimes slow” and linked to low staffing levels.Observations during the inspection showed delays in staff responding to people calling out for help, including occasions where people waited several minutes forassistanceor where staff were notimmediatelyavailable on the unit.Low staffing numbers were a consistent theme across multiple sources and were identified asimpactingthe ability of staff to support people promptly and consistently, particularly at busy times or overnight.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. While many staff described a supportive team culture and approachable management, this was undermined by ongoing staffing pressures and workload demands. Staff consistently reported that over recent months there had been insufficient staffing levels, particularly on certain shifts, which resulted in rushed care, delayed support for people and increased stress and fatigue. Some staff described working long shifts or covering multiple responsibilities, which increased the risk of burnout and reduced their ability to deliver person-centred care. Although training was available, and staff valued supervision and development opportunities, access to training was not always effective or timely. For example, the training did not cover areas related to managing distress and aggression, using breakaway techniques or using the electronic care records. Staff also reported the provider did not act on their concerns, particularly about staffing levels and opportunities for engagement with senior managers were inconsistent. These issues had an impact on staff wellbeing and affected their ability to consistently provide personalised and responsive care.