Archived: Madeline McKenna Court

Updated 20 January 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

The inspection was conducted on 24 November 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider, about incidents that affected the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home and previous inspection reports. We checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people who lived at the home had been received.

The provider sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We were unable to access the PIR before the inspection took place

During the inspection we spoke with four people using the service, two visiting relatives, one healthcare professional and four staff. We spent time looking at a range of records including four people’s care plans, three staff recruitment files, staff training and supervision records, the staff rota, medication administration records, a sample of policies and procedures, minutes of staff meetings, and compliments and acknowledgements received at the service. We looked around the home, including the bathrooms, lounges, the dining room and some people’s bedrooms.

Updated 20 January 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 November 2016.

The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector.

The home was last inspected in August 2013 and was compliant in all areas.

Madeline McKenna Court is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 23 people over the age of 65. It is run by Arena Options Limited and is situated in the Hough Green area of Widnes. The home is a single storey building with 23 single rooms with ensuite toilets.

There was a registered manager 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.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they liked living at the home and felt safe and secure.

Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or was at risk of harm. Staff told us they would not hesitate to whistle blow to the registered manager, the local authority or CQC.

There was a procedure in place for recording and analysing incidents and accidents.

Rotas showed there were enough staff employed by the home to deliver a safe, consistent service. We observed people were not rushed, and people told us there was enough staff to assist them when they required it.

Medications were managed safely and administered correctly. Medication checks were regularly completed and there were systems and processes in place to report any concerns.

Robust pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they started working at the home to ensure they were suitable to support vulnerable people and had the skills required for this role.

The home was working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and all DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) were in place for those who required them.

Consent was appropriately documented for people who were able to give their consent and we saw there was a procedure in place for ‘best interests’ decisions to help those who could not consent.

Staff were trained in accordance with the provider’s own training and development policy, and training certificates were stored in staff files.

People were supported to receive a balanced diet. Menus were varied and different dietary needs were taken into consideration.

When speaking with staff, and from our observations around the service, we could see highly personal and warm acts of kindness taking place between staff and people who lived at the home. Relatives we spoke with told us that the staff were skilled and thoughtful.

Care plans were personalised and very detailed, encompassing important information about each person so as to enable the staff to know them as an individual, and explain how their needs should be met. Relatives told us they were involved with and included in their family members’ care and support and that communication between themselves and the staff team was good. Relatives told us they felt their family member was valued highly and were listened to.

A process was in place for managing complaints and the home’s complaints procedure was available so people had access to this information.

People and relatives were complimentary about the registered manager and the senior care staff.

Systems were in place to monitor the standard of the service and drive forward improvements. This included a number of audits for different areas of practice and clear and transparent action plans when areas of improvement were identified by the audit process