You are here

Marian House Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 March 2018

We carried out inspection visits on 08 and 09 February 2018. The first day of our inspection visit was unannounced and on our second day we announced our visit.

Marian House Nursing Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 42 older people. There were 35 people living in the home at the time of our inspection visits.

There was a registered manager in post and they were present at the time of our inspection. 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.

We had last undertaken an inspection visit on 23 and 24 February 2017 and the overall ratings given were Requires Improvement as three of the five key questions, safe, responsive and well led were Requires Improvement. The other two key questions, effective and safe had a rating of Good.

At this inspection we found the provider had made significant improvements and achieved an overall rating of Good.

People told us they felt safe when staff supported them with their needs and staff applied their training when using equipment to ensure people were safe and comfortable. Staff practices were consistent in monitoring people’s care needs so risks to people from avoidable harm were reduced.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff with the right skills to meet their needs who had been deployed so risks to people’s safety were reduced as they received timely care. Recruitment checks had been completed before new staff were appointed to make sure they were suitable to work with people who lived at the home.

Staff knew how to protect people and reduce accidents and incidents from happening by ensuring people’s needs were met in a safe way. Staff applied their training and followed the registered provider’s policies in how to recognise and report any concerns so people were kept safe from harm and abuse.

People were happy with the support they received from staff in order to take their medicines as prescribed. Staff practices around the administration and management of people’s medicines reduced the risks of people not receiving their medicines as prescribed to meet their health needs.

People felt staff were caring towards them and staff had developed respectful relationships with people. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff who worked to a set of values around providing care centred on each person.

People valued the responsiveness of staff when being supported with their needs. There were on-going developments in offering people things to do for fun and interest which met their particular needs.

Care records were personalised and there were future plans to introduce electronic care records as another tool to support people in receiving consistent care. Staff knew people well and used every opportunity to continue to enhance their skills and knowledge in order to effectively meet people’s needs. Staff provided end of life care in a sensitive and kept people at the centre at this important time in their lives so they lived well until they died.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and support workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies, procedures and staff training supported this least restrictive practice.

People had been helped to eat and drink enough to stay well. People had access to a range of health and social care professionals when they required specialist help.

People valued th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 March 2018

The service is safe.

Staff had received training in keeping people safe from abuse and the registered manager investigated concerns and took appropriate action.

People's risks had been identified and care was planned to keep people safe from avoidable harm, with lessons learnt to prevent similar incidents of harm from happening again.

Staffing levels were monitored to ensure there were enough staff to meet people�s individual needs.

Safe principles were followed when recruiting new staff and administering people�s medicines.

People benefitted from staff�s practices in preventing and controlling risks of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 March 2018

The service is effective.

People�s needs were assessed with their involvement so their preferences were known in order to support and guide staff practices in meeting their needs.

Staff received training and support and worked as a team which helped them to provide the care people required to meet their particular needs.

People's capacity to consent was taken into account and any limitations on choice were planned for.

People were supported with their dietary needs and had access to health and social care professionals to maintain good health.

The home environment and facilities were continually developed and improved to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 March 2018

The service is caring.

People were treated with respect and compassion by staff who knew them well.

People were supported to make choices and decisions about their day to day lives.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence, privacy and dignity.

People�s personal information was securely stored to maintain their confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 March 2018

The service is responsive

People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.

People were supported to take part in leisure pursuits they enjoyed to help people in leading a full life.

People knew how to raise concerns and make a complaint if they needed to.

There was a compassionate approach to respecting people�s wishes at the end of their lives and ensuring people lived well until they died.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 March 2018

The service is well led

People benefitted from staff who understood the positive values and culture of the service seen in the way staff spoke and the care they provided.

The registered manager had an inclusive style of leadership which placed people at the heart of the care and support they needed.

High priority had been placed following our previous inspection on monitoring the quality of the service. This strong focus had ensured continuous improvements were made. The management team knew their next goal was to sustain these for the benefit of people who lived at the home.