We carried out a review of the data available to us about Merrywick Hall on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Merrywick Hall, you can give feedback on this service.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered to support up to 33 people and at the time of our inspection 33 people lived at the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and being varied.
People’s experience of using this service
We received positive views from people and relatives about the support provided to people. Care and support were tailored to each person's needs and preferences. People were supported to be involved in the local community and build on their independence.
People, their relatives and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and listened to them. The registered manager had reviewed and updated checks in place to monitor the quality of care provided. These were in the process of being implemented.
There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff demonstrated an awareness of safety and how to minimise risks. Recruitment checks were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service. People were supported to take positive risks and be independent. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and were effective at managing risk.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received their medicines on time and their health was well managed.
People were supported with their communication needs and staff demonstrated effective skills in communication.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 26 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.
People told us they felt safe living at the home. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited.
Staff had received appropriate training to give them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on the administration of medicines and on how to protect people from the risk of harm.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind, caring and considerate. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.
Care planning described the person and the level of support they required. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate record of the person and their day to day needs.
People were given the opportunity to feedback their views of the service provided. People told us they were aware of how to express concerns or make complaints.
The manager was the registered manager for the home’s ‘sister’ service. However, they were not yet registered to manage Merrywick Hall.
The manager was gradually introducing new care planning documentation, quality assurance systems and other improved practices to provide consistency between the two services.
The manager carried out audits to ensure people were receiving the care and support that they required, and to monitor that staff were following the policies, procedures and systems in place.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 21 April 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 11 December 2013; at that time the home was registered under the provider Willerfoss Homes and it is now registered under the provider Willerfoss Homes Limited. When we visited Merrywick Hall on 11 December 2013 we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.
The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 28 people with a learning disability. The home is located in Hedon, a market town close to Hull, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is close to local amenities and on good transport routes. The home consists of a main house and a bungalow that is located within the same grounds. The bungalow accommodates five people who are more independent than the people who live in the main house. Most people have a single bedroom and some bedrooms have en-suite facilities.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had completed training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to describe to us the action they would take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. They said that they were confident all staff would recognise and report any incidents or allegations of abuse and that concerns would be dealt with effectively by managers.
We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home and staff on the day of the inspection. People told us that staff were caring and compassionate and this was supported by the relatives and health / social care professionals who we spoke with.
People who used the service, relatives and social care professionals told us that staff were effective and skilled. Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them.
People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were not able to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct authorisations had been applied for.
Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.
We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home and to enable them to spend one to one time with people. New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home. People were supported appropriately by staff to eat and drink safely and their special diets were catered for.
There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff. People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately.
People who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us that the home was well managed. The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe, and there were systems in place to ensure that managers and staff reflected on practice and made any necessary improvements.