Meryton Place Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Information was available about people’s likes, dislikes, preferences, risks and communication requirements. When people’s needs changed reassessments were completed. For example, one relative told us, “[Person] is going through a phase of physical deterioration and was having falls, so sleeping arrangements were changed and crash mats provided, they discussed these things with me.” Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people and their support needs.

One person who had recently transferred from another service told us they had not had access to a chiropodist since arriving. They confirmed they had not raised this with staff or leaders but were happy for us to do it on their behalf during our onsite visit. When we spoke with the registered manager, they acknowledged this had been missed during the initial assessment. A referral was made immediately, and an additional checklist was added to their assessment process to prevent similar oversights in the future.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Information about the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI), a tool used by healthcare professionals to assess people’s needs to ensure they had the appropriate food and drink textures, was displayed in the kitchen. Each person’s IDDSI and allergy information were documented in a separate folder and listed on a kitchen board for staff reference. Kitchen staff were able to describe people’s individual needs and how they prepared food for people on different IDDSI levels. They had also received training in this area. Food and fluid monitoring was in place for people at risk of dehydration and malnutrition.

However, we identified a gap in care planning for one person with a diagnosis of diabetes. While the care plan included evidence-based guidance on recognising changes in hyperglycaemia levels, it lacked specific dietary guidance. For example, the care plan stated, “Staff should encourage the person to follow an appropriate diet and explain the benefits to the person,” but it did not provide details on what that diet should include. This meant staff did not have the necessary up-to-date information to support the person in managing their diabetes-related dietary needs. Although, staff had received training in diabetes management.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People told us they had access to any services needed, such as the GP, physiotherapy and nurses. We received mixed feedback from partners about how the service worked with them. Some partners told us the service worked well with them, highlighting ‘seamless communication’ about people and described leaders and staff as ‘very responsive.’ One partner commented positively about the ‘collaborative approach and timely updates.’ Another partner commented, “Meryton Place are friendly, welcoming and professional. Staff are always considerate towards everyone - residents, relatives and other health care professionals.”

However, one partner told us following the inspection, “I get conflicting/incomplete information sometimes when speaking to members of staff and at times staff appear unaware of my recommendations, which makes me wonder how this is shared within the team.”

Most staff felt information was cascaded to them in a timely manner. However, one staff member told us, “Sometimes it can take a while for information to filter through, but I know the important stuff gets dealt with immediately.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us staff were supportive, and overall, they provided positive comments about the food in the service. People had access to regular healthy snacks and activities. We saw people leaving the service to go out for the day with family and friends. The was an onsite exercise room which the service’s physiotherapist visited fortnightly to conduct exercise to help with strengthening people’s mobility and aid towards falls prevention. People also had access to an NHS physiotherapist where an assessed need had been identified. A partner told us, “They conduct reviews within the home and let us know the outcomes to see how we can support people better.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Records to monitor safe practices were completed and there was a clinical lead onsite who oversaw people’s needs and monitored outcomes. Staff showed good knowledge of monitoring people’s outcomes, for example one staff member told us, “We have residents who we monitor intake and output, especially those with a catheter, we make sure we record it, so we record intake and then output. When we collect urine at the end of the shift, we make sure they are corresponding, if it doesn’t match, we relay that to the nurse.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed when required. People and their relatives told us staff always asked for ongoing consent when they were supporting people. Staff and leaders understood their responsibilities for ensuring people could make decisions about their care and support. They told us how they helped people to make decisions by offering choices in a way people understood. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, relatives and professionals had been involved and the service followed best interest processes.