You are here

Merseyview Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 September 2019

About the service

Merseyview Residential Home provides accommodation with personal care, for a maximum of 12 people aged 65 and over at any one time. At the time of inspection, 10 people lived at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The way in which some people’s medications were accounted for required improvement. This was because records relating to the amount of medication in the home were not always correct. We found that people received the medicines they needed and that their medication was reviewed regularly with their GP. This was good practice.

Health and safety checks were undertaken at the home to ensure the premises and the equipment in use was safe. An inspection of the home’s bath hoist needed to be undertaken and the home’s written fire evacuation procedure required greater detail. The manager told us they would address both of these issues without delay.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Where people had the capacity to make decisions for themselves, the manager and staff supported their ability to do so as much as possible and respected their choices. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were upheld by the manager and staff. Further work was needed however to ensure that this legislation was followed in full when applying for deprivation of liberty safeguards to keep people safe. We discussed this with the manager and they were fully committed to improving this process.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and told us the support was good. A relative we spoke with confirmed this. They were very complimentary about the support provided by the manager and staff to their loved one during a period of ill-health. They told us that they had gone the extra mile to ensure the person received the support they needed. Everyone we spoke with said the manager and staff team were kind and caring and that they were well looked after.

People received enough to eat and drink and had a choice at mealtimes. During lunch we heard people openly praise the chef for the quality of the meal served and people told us the food was nice.

Staff felt supported and received sufficient training to do their job role effectively. The manager was hands on and worked alongside the staff team as a positive role model. Interactions between staff and the people they supported were respectful, patient and compassionate. It was clear that everyone knew each other well and had genuine affection for each other.

People’s care plans were person centred. Staff had guidance on what was important to people and how to communicate with them. This helped staff provide personalised support that met their needs and wishes were met.

There was a range of social activities to help people combat possible feelings of isolation and loneliness. People’s ideas and suggestions on the types of activities they would like to participate in where sought and acted upon. It was clear that people had a choice in how they lived their lives and that their support was tailored accordingly.

Records showed that proactive and prompt action was taken in response to people’s ill health or changing support needs. The manager and staff worked hard to ensure people received the care they needed and as a result people’s physical and mental well-being was supported by a range of health and social care professionals.

People’s feedback about the support they received was positive both on the day of the inspection and via a survey conducted by the manager. The culture of the home was open and transparent. The atmosphere warm and homely and everyone we spoke with felt the service was well led.

There were adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Where improvements were required, for example with regards to the fire evacuation procedure we found the

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.