Magnolia House 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.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were bored especially in the afternoons. Comments included, “We are bored. But happy here if that makes sense”; “Well I am bored, there is nothing to do. This morning, we had [name of entertainer] playing guitar, but nothing now…We are outside people, no games, no gardening, just boring sitting outside and look at the house,” and “We are bored. Wish we could go out more on day trips.” On the second day of our visit, the registered manager told us, people had been outside gardening the previous day.

The registered manager 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. A pre-admission assessment was completed prior to people coming to live at the home. People and their families were included in the admission process to the home and were asked their views and how they wanted to be supported.

Care plans were on the providers new electronic system and were detailed and up to date reflecting individual’s needs. People felt they were well cared for, and staff knew them well.

People had a new weekly timetable of activities. There was 1 activity person, and the registered manager told us they were looking to recruit another.

The registered manager scheduled external entertainers to visit and there was an interactive device in the communal area which we were told did not work. The registered manager said they were looking into this.

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.

People’s care records showed continuity of care, and that staff were following advice from external health and social care professionals involved in peoples’ care. For example, one person required periods of bed rest advised by the community nurse team. This had been actioned.

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

We observed most staff communicating and interacting with people in a way they understood. This included speaking to them clearly, at their eye level and allowing them time to take in the information and respond at their own speed. Where one member of staff was observed not interacting with a person the registered manager acted to improve their practice.

People were asked for their views and there were regular residents’ meetings and opportunities for people and families to speak to the registered manager and staff.

The registered manager told us they were in the process of making a staff photograph board, so people and visitors knew who staff members were.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints.

People knew how to provide feedback about the home. The registered manager was very visible and knew everybody very well. People interacted positively with the registered manager and only spoke positively about them.

People were able to attend meetings to share their views and complete the providers annual feedback survey.

The provider made sure people had access to support and treatment when they needed it.

People were supported to attend health appointments and care records confirmed referrals to external health professionals were made in a timely manner when required for further assessment and or guidance.

People were supported by external professionals including from the local GP practice. For example, a person had fallen and declined hospital support. The registered manager arranged for the GP to visit the same day to ensure there were no concerns.

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

Care was personalised and in line with people’s preferences. People spoke positively about the care staff that supported them and felt involved in planning their care and support. People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received.

Equality, diversity and human rights training was part of the provider's mandatory training requirements and people were cared for without discrimination and in a way that respected their differences.

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 where appropriate, were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care.

Where people were nearing the end of their lives, staff had worked with their GP to ensure there were appropriate medicines prescribed and available to manage any pain they might have.