The Care Quality Commission

Archived: Chromolyte Limited t/a Manchester House Nursing Home

Manchester House Nursing Home, 83 Albert Road, Southport, Merseyside, PR9 9LN (01704) 534920

Provided and run by:
Chromolyte Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

23, 28 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We observed higher levels of staff interaction with people than during our previous visit. People living in the home and staff told us that there had been an increase in staffing levels and that this had made a difference to the care provided. One person commented, 'Manchester House is very good. I feel well supported by the staff."

We saw records which showed that people who had personal allowance monies managed by the home had this identified in a resident's account which was itemised individually. A record was kept of any financial transactions and we saw financial records for some people.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for medicines administration and recording.

The records showed that temperatures of hot water were within safe limits. We looked at other keys areas of the home's maintenance. We were shown health and safety audits [checks] of bedrooms and shared areas [lounges, dining room] carried out monthly to help ensure that hazards were identified and any routine maintenance was identified.

The people we spoke with told us that staffing had improved. One person said, 'There's more staff generally and they are on time with my care.' We saw that there were staff available to assist people at breakfast which had not been the case on the previous inspection.

On this inspection it was evident that the service had developed its systems to assess and monitor quality.

24 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with five people about medicines handling at the home. Everyone we spoke with was happy with the arrangements in place when nurses administered their medicines. People told us that they knew what their medicines were for with one person adding that they felt, 'well looked after'.

However, one of the people we spoke with had chosen to self-administer some of their own medicines. They explained that they were not taking one of these medications because they did not know 'how to use it'. We found that written assessments and a care plan had not been completed to help ensure that they received any help they may need to safely self-administer medication.

We also found that managers at the home did not complete written audits of medicines handling to monitor whether medicines were being safely handled in accordance with the home's medicines policy.

3 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with who lived at Manchester House told us they felt included in their care and felt supported. They said the staff were polite and helpful. We saw staff carrying out personal care appropriately and people commented that staff were confident in their care.

Relatives we spoke with told us that Manchester House had provided very good support for people with some complex care needs. This told us family members felt their relatives acute care needs were supported well.

Our observations of some aspects of daily care were not consistent. For periods of time we saw limited staff available to monitor and assist people if needed. Areas of care such as completing observation charts were not consistently carried out. Nursing staff told us medication rounds were often late because other jobs and responsibilities continually distracted them.

This meant that some areas of care were not being carried out or monitored effectively placing some people at possible risk.

Auditing and checking of key areas such as, infection control and hot water temperatures had not been carried out for some time. Lack of audits and checks of health and safety issues could leave people using the service at risk.

On this visit we highlighted aspects of the running of the home which the manager had not been aware of, or had not acted on.

It is a concern these some of these issues were highlighted on the previous inspection in June 2012 and had still not been addressed.

25 April 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We looked to see if people were included in the daily care and whether staff encouraged this. We also asked people whether staff included them in the care.

The observations we made showed mixed outcomes for people. We observed some positive staff interactions, particularly from staff who were organising activities for people. Other staff were positive in their interactions but this was only when involved in carrying out tasks such as bringing a cup of tea. Other staff did not interact with people at all when carrying out care tasks and did not explain or ask permission for aspects of care.

We spoke with people living in the home. Most of those we spoke with said that they felt included in the care and that staff respected them as individuals. One said, 'Staff are always available and they are very good.' Many expressed the view that they felt their dignity was maintained, as staff supported them well with their personal care.

We did receive some comments that this was not always the case however, and that whilst 'Most staff are nice ' some are not.' One person told us that staff are very busy and care can be a 'bit institutionalised'. We received other comments that 'Staff are to busy to spend time talking.'

Prior to our visit we had some concerns raised by professionals visiting the home to provide ongoing support for one person living there. Some of the concerns were about the standard of care being delivered to the person who had very dependant, ongoing care needs.

We received further concerns from a relative who had seen a decline in the care at the home over a period of about six months. They also had concerns about the general care of their relative.

All of the people we spoke at the time of our visit said they were getting a good standard of care. One person spent long periods in the bedroom but had a call bell so that staff could be called; 'They are very good and generally come when I call.'

Another person said 'I wasn't well recently but staff sorted me out. They got the doctor and I'm OK now.'

Some people commented that staff generally had time but care could be delayed if somebody was off sick or didn't turn in. They said staff were extremely busy and sometimes struggled to get care delivered on time.

Prior to our visit we had a number of concerns raised by health care professionals visiting the service as well as feedback from a relative visiting the home. These raised concerns around some of the current practices by staff and the possible failure to maintain adequate standards of infection control.

People had no complaints about the way medicines were managed in the home. One person said: 'Generally I get my medicines on time but they are sometimes late if the nurse is busy.'

Prior to our visit we were advised by people visiting the home of some concerns regarding the general maintenance and security of the home.

People told us that they are consulted about their care and about aspects of the running of the home. Some people told us that they had just completed a questionnaire about key aspects of the running of the home such as the meals, cleanliness of the home and attitudes of the staff.

People spoken with said that the home was run well and they knew who to approach if they had any concerns.

3 March 2011

During a routine inspection

On the day of the site visit 8 people who live in the home were interviewed and asked their views specifically about their experiences of how the service involved them and kept them informed. All confirmed, that they felt like they were encouraged to express their views openly. They were of the opinion that these views were being taken into account by staff in the decision making for the care and treatment they received at the home. Many expressed the view that they felt like they were treated with respect and dignity. The level of dependency of people in the home is very high and many of those spoken with need to use mobility aids. All spoken with said that these were used appropriately and the staff are both competent and respectful in terms of any privacy and dignity issues.

People were cared for in an environment that allows privacy; people commented on the amount of day space as well as the size of individual bedrooms. Comments received from visitors confirmed that their wishes were listened to and that staff were open to discussion.

We asked peoples views on being supported to consent to care and treatment. Generally they spoke positively about how staff included them in the care and confirmed that staff asked for their consent to care and treatment as required. For example one relative said that staff conferred with them about a recent referral to the GP as a visit was needed. They had been kept updated and their views had been sought so that decisions could be made in the person's best interests. This helps confirm that the home is good at explaining and involving the person in any decisions made about planned treatment.

The dependency of people living in the home can be very high and we asked some people about how staff moved them using the hoist. Those we spoke with said that there was good communication and staff were very competent when carrying out care and using equipment.

Generally people were relaxed and talked freely. One person was clearly not well but was being attended to by staff that were knowledgeable regarding his care needs.

We spoke with one person who said 'The staff look after me very well. There's plenty of staff about ' I only have to call them'.

We had some feedback from a recent visit from the social service contracts team who were looking at the care of a specific person. They reported that the home had been thorough in their care and had made good use of external health care professionals. The health care professional involved agreed with this and said that the home coped very well with people who had highly dependant care needs and would always refer and seek advice appropriately. This shows that people can access and receive appropriate health care.

People spoken with said that meals provided were good and there was a choice available. We saw plenty of staff involved in serving and supporting people with their diet. We observed a meal time and the pace of the meal was appropriate and sociable.

Those people spoken with were very relaxed around staff and said that they were listened to so that any concerns could be addressed. Residents, when asked, said that they felt 'safe' and they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and addressed.

People on the day of the visit told us that the home is always clean and this included shared toilets and bathrooms, as well as bedrooms.

We spoke with eight people in some depth on the site visit. None of the people we spoke with had any issues with the way medication was managed and felt that staff were supportive.

We spoke with people about the staff. They told us that staff were competent and were easily identifiable. We received positive comments about staff and their approach. This helps people to feel safe in the home. Comments include:

'Staff are very good. There is good equipment for disability and staff assist me when I have a bath'.

'Staff always let me now what's happening and ask me if I need to see a doctor. I see how they look after other people ' very good care'.