Meryton Place Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us staff knew them well and understood their preferences. Staff were able to describe the needs of the people they supported, and we observed they responded to individuals in a person-centred way. For example, one person preferred a cappuccino at 11am every day, and staff made sure they facilitated this. In another example, a person needed a calm and quiet environment during personal care to lessen the risk of distress, and staff adapted their approach accordingly. The provider also had a ‘snug’ area used as a library, which included large-print books to support people with visual impairments.

People and their relatives told us care plans were reviewed regularly with them and the person receiving care. The care plans we reviewed were noted to be personalised and contained detailed guidance for staff to follow. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to reflect people’s current needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

One person told us, “I’ve got nurses here, care workers, the doctor comes every Wednesday and the district nurses once a week or so.” A healthcare partner also told us, “Yes, there is good continuity, they support transitions in partnership with patients and their relatives.”

We saw of evidence of the provider working collaboratively with other services on behalf of people to promote integrated care and ensure continuity of support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There were several examples of good practice in how the service adapted communication to meet people’s needs. Hearing loops were available on each floor in the main lounge to support people with hearing impairments.

The service worked closely with a person who had experienced a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) resulting in sight impairment and communication difficulties. In response, staff had created a large-print book to read, increased the size of the writing on their television screen and introduced flash cards to aid communication.

For another person who was hard of hearing, the service provided a tableside whiteboard so staff could write questions, as verbal communication was sometimes difficult. For another person with a cognitive impairment, who sometimes became distressed and would revert to their first language, the service had identified a staff member who worked at the service who also spoke the same language and ensured they were available to support the person. This allowed the person to be heard so their needs could be met.

Menus were provided in large font and staff read them aloud to people with visual impairments. For individuals with cognitive difficulties, staff brought plated examples of meals to their rooms to help them make informed choices. Copies of the daily menus and activity schedules were displayed throughout the building including inside the lift. The provider had an Accessible Information Standards (AIS) policy in place. People’s communication needs were clearly documented in care plans to ensure information was shared with them in a way that suited them.

The provider enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

‘Resident’ and relative meetings were held regularly, where actions from previous meetings, staff updates and mealtime experiences and activities were discussed. People were also encouraged to raise other matters that were important to them. Staff had regular supervisions and team meetings and felt confident in raising any concerns.

Feedback exercises for people who used the service, relatives and staff regularly took place through formal feedback forms. Visitors to the service could also share their experience by using the digital reception application. Between January and April 2025, the provider’s feedback showed 3,005 people had visited the service. Of those who had visited, 77.7% rated the service as ‘Very Good’, 19.4% as ‘Good’ and 2.9% as ‘Average’. If a visitor indicated dissatisfaction, the registered manager received an immediate email alert, prompting timely follow-up and resolution.

People knew how to raise complaints about the service and there was a complaints policy in place which the provider followed. For example, the service had received a complaint about another family member being contacted rather than the nominated ‘next of kin’, after an incident involving a person living at the service. The provider addressed the complaint within the designated timeframes and told the complainant what they had done as a result of their complaint, such as update the care plan to ensure the information was visible to staff.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People told us they had access to the equipment they needed and well supported by the service. One person said, “If you need care and support, I’d say come here, it’s where you get lots of help.” A relative told us, “[Person’s] care has constantly been adapted to meet their deterioration, staff has a lovely rapport with them.”

For people with mobility and sensory difficulties, the provider had ensured the environment they resided in was not a barrier to their wellbeing. For example, people were able to move freely throughout the building, which had wide corridors and stairways to accommodate mobility aids and ensure ease of access. There was also a lift to allow people to move between floors more easily if required.

Staff knew people and their needs well, and they told us if they identified any concerns, they would report to the clinical lead or the registered manager, to ensure people had timely access to the support. A physiotherapist, funded by the service, visited every fortnight to work with individuals who wished to receive support. Strengthening activities were also provided to help prevent falls amongst those at risk.

People’s care plans provided staff with a clear overview of their needs and any potential barriers they might experience in receiving care, support and treatment. For example, one care plan noted a person with cognitive impairment might refuse personal care, so it included advice for staff to be patient and some alternative techniques to use to ensure the person’s needs were met.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had received dementia specific training as well as training in equality and diversity to help them understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that could affect people’s experiences and outcomes. The provider had policies in place covering equality, diversity and human rights to protect both the people using the service and staff against discrimination.

Leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people living at the service and took action when needed. People’s care plans contained information about their preferences and wishes in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. Partners told us the service made appropriate referrals to healthcare services when needed, ensuring people received the right support at the right time.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People and their relatives told us discussions had taken place regarding future plans and these were clearly documented. Where individuals had consented to the discussion, the information was included in their care plans. Where people chose not to discuss their future plans, decisions were also clearly recorded and respected. Staff had received training in end-of-life care and were able to describe how they worked collaboratively with the clinical team to ensure people’s needs were met with dignity and compassion.