Archived: Maryfield Convent Residential Home

Maryfield Convent Residential home is a 'care home’ which can accommodate up to 18 older people in one adapted building. At the time of inspection, there were 18 people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received care and support that was safe. The provider took steps to protect people from risks, including the risk of abuse or avoidable harm. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure when staff employed they were suitable to work with people in their homes. The provider actively promoted safety around medicines and infection control.

People received care and support that was effective and based on their assessments and care plans. Staff were trained and supported to deliver care according to people’s needs; and worked with other agencies to deliver consistent and effective care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had caring and kind relationships with staff, the Sisters and the registered managers. The registered managers worked to respect and promote people’s privacy, dignity and independence by encouraging people to be involved in their care.

People received care and support which met their needs and reflected their preferences. The provider complied with best practice guidance with respect to meeting people’s communication needs.

The service was well led. There was focus on meeting people’s individual needs, working in cooperation with others and continuous learning. This was supported by an effective management system appropriate for the size of the organisation.

The home has been rated Good overall as it met the characteristics for this rating in all five of the key questions. More information is in the full report, which is on the CQC website at: www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The service was rated good at our last inspection (published 25 January 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.

Maryfield Convent Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 18 elderly people. The home provides both full-time residential and short-term respite care and accommodates people of all faiths. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people using the service.

There were two registered managers in post. 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 they felt safe and would feel at ease to raise any concerns with staff or the manager if they needed to. Staff knew how to protect people against the risk of abuse and had completed training in safeguarding people so they knew how to recognise abuse and poor practice. Risks to people's health and welfare had been assessed and support plans gave staff clear instructions on how to minimise the identified risks. As a result, staff knew how to ensure people’s safety.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal.

Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in a relaxed and unhurried manner. Staffing levels were adjusted to the agenda of each day. Apart from the regular staff, there was always a number of suitably qualified nuns to help in case of staffing shortage. Staff numbers were increased when needed to ensure people were supported with appointments, care reviews and outings. Staff members confirmed there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs and assist them in socialising.

Consent to care and support was routinely sought and staff acted in accordance with people's wishes. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, and staff took steps to support people to do this.

Staff had access to induction and on-going training, supervision and appraisal. This ensured staff had the skills and knowledge to support people safely and effectively.

People were provided with nutritious meals which looked appetising and which people enjoyed.

Arrangements were in place to facilitate assistance for people with special dietary and support needs.

People had access to healthcare when they needed it and recommendations from healthcare professionals were implemented.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. We observed that staff knocked on people's doors and waited to be told they could enter before accessing people's rooms. People's requests for support or assistance were responded to promptly and with kindness.

The delivery of the end-of-life care involved promoting sensitivity, dignity and respect. People’s wishes and expectations were taken into account, noted and acted upon.

Each person had a personalised care plan containing information about their life histories and support needs. The care plans had been updated in line with people’s changing needs. People said they were involved in making decisions regarding their care.

People were provided with the opportunity to participate in the activities they found interesting. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. However, there had been no formal complaints recorded at the service.

There was clear leadership within the home. The provider carried out regular checks on the quality of care and services to identify any areas that required improvement. People were encouraged to participate in ‘resident meetings’ so they could be involved in discussions related to the running of the home.

We observed how staff supported people and looked at documents including three care plans, training records and management reports. We considered how the service met key outcomes, including delivering people's care, keeping people safe from abuse, supporting staff and monitoring the quality of care provision.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe and comments included. 'I feel safe and secure here. I like my room and all the staff are so kind to you.'

There were systems in place to support the provider to learn from events such as accidents and incidents and these were reported to statutory bodies when required. The home provided staff with guidance in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people's freedom and rights were protected. No applications had needed to be submitted. Meetings had been held with families and other professionals to ensure people's best interests were upheld where people required assistance in making some decisions about their lives.

Is the service caring?

We observed how members of staff cared for and treated people. We saw that this was done in a caring and patient manner. People told us they were always treated kindly and with respect. Comments included. 'It is a lovely place to be, the staff are so kind and nothing is too much trouble for them'.

Is the service effective?

People's health and emotional needs were assessed and kept under regular review. People were involved in their care plans and families told us they were given opportunities to be involved in all aspects of their relative's care. Care plans detailed people's nutrition and hydration needs and these were regularly reviewed and updated.

People told us that they had access to good healthcare support. A local GP visited the home regularly.They told us.'People receive very good care indeed. The cleanliness of the home is exemplary, food provided is very good and people are treated very kindly and with dignity and respect.'

Is the service responsive?

We observed that that staff responded promptly to people's requests. Call bells were answered straight away and requests for assistance were treated promptly and with kindness. When one person said they felt unwell a doctor was called and asked to visit and their care plan was updated to reflect their changing needs.

People told us they had activities on offer and were involved with their local community especially through a 'coffee club' held following a church service each morning. This offered stimulation, interest and friendship for people.

People using the service and their families were aware of how to use the home's complaints procedure. They told us that any concerns they had were listened to and responded to as soon as possible.

A family member said. 'I feel that the ratio of staff to residents is very good, there never seems to be a moment when there is not staff in close proximity so things are instantly noticed and acted upon.'

Is the service well-led?

Feedback we received from a local GP confirmed that the service worked well with other agencies to provide good care for people.

There was a quality assurance process in place and monthly audits were carried out by the manager to identify and action improvements to the quality of service.

Staff told us that they felt well supported and they were aware of the need to protect people and ensure they received a good quality service at all times. A family member that spoke with us said. 'There is very good care, in fact, wonderful care. There is a very happy atmosphere in the home and the staff are very dedicated to the people in their care'.

The provider ensured care plans and risk assessments were reviewed appropriately and reflected people's needs. We found that valid consent to their care and support had been obtained.

People living in the home appeared happy and were cared for with sensitivity and patience. Staff practice during our inspection showed that people were receiving safe and appropriate care designed to meet their specific needs. People praised the dedication and devotion of the staff. One person told us, 'You could not get better care anywhere." One relative said, 'Since my mother has moved into Maryfields her kidney infections have cleared up and she's had no falls, which is down to the care and attention of the Sisters.'

We saw that people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs and that they were screened routinely for malnutrition.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe and protected from potential harm by the quality of care provided by the staff. We found that the home managed medicines in a way that ensured the safety of people who lived in the home.

The home had an effective complaints system, although there had been no complaints since 2006.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time. The registered manager is now Doris Schembri.

People told us there were always enough trained staff on duty to support them and they came immediately when called. We saw several good examples of swift and effective response during the inspection.

All of the people using the service spoke favourably about the staff. One person said, "They're marvellous. They're just like my family." Another service user said, "I'm as happy as I could be. They're so kind."

We saw that effective procedures for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provided were in place.

However, whilst the standard of care was good, the manager was not clear about her responsibilities with regard to safeguarding or reporting serious incidents. The service did not have a safeguarding policy or a copy of the local authority multi agency guidance on safeguarding. Although the quality of care was not in question, one incident involving a serious accidental injury was not reported as required.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time. The registered manager is now Doris Schembri.