Merseyview Residential Home

Updated 26 January 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 11 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours notice of the inspection.

Updated 26 January 2022

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 manager to be responsive and committed to ensuring the service provided was a good one. We found the service to be well managed.

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (22 August 2018).

At the last inspection we found that the governance arrangements in place were not effective enough to ensure the service was always well led. This was a breach of Regulation 17 (Good governance) of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. After the last inspection, the provider completed an action plan to show what they would do to improve and by when. At this inspection we found that sufficient improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.