You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

This unannounced comprehensive inspection of Menwinnion Country House took place on the 14 February 2016.

A previous comprehensive inspection of this service was completed in January 2016. That inspection found that although the service was providing good ‘care’ it required improvement in four of our five key question areas. A number of breaches of the regulation were identified.

In July 2016 a focused inspection was completed to check the required improvements had been made. The focused inspection found significant improvements had been made in most areas but further improvements were required as the service remained in breach of the regulations in relation to the training and induction of staff.

Menwinnion Country House is a large detached building located within its own gardens in the far west of Cornwall. It is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 people who do not require nursing care. On the day of this inspection 35 people were using the service. Some people were living with dementia.

The service is required of have a manager who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. Registered managers like registered providers have responsibilities for ensuring the service meets the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was no registered manager in place at the time of this inspection. This means that it is not possible to the service to achieve a ‘good’ rating in relation to our question is the service well led.

The service was being provided with effective leadership by the acting manager with support from the provider’s nominated individual and training lead. Staff were well motivated and told us they were confident the acting manager would take action to address and resolve any issues they reported. Staff comments included, “You can go to them with anything and they are as good as gold”, “The manager is very approachable. If I have a query I just ask them” and “The manager is doing really well, I can’t fault her.” While people and their relatives also reported they had confidence that action would be taken to address any issue they reported.

People were constantly complimentary of the care and support they received at Menwinnion Country House. They told us, “I would recommend it” and “It’s very good, the Queen couldn’t be treated better than we are.” People were relaxed and comfortable in their home and we observed numerous examples of people laughing and joking with care staff and managers. One person joked, “The staff are awful” before smiling and stating, “I think they do a really good job.”

Relative also praised staff for the compassion with which they provided support and one person’s relative said, “Their attitude is the main thing. Good staff with the right attitude.” Visiting health care professionals told us, “The staff are very good, very attentive” and “I can honestly say they are one of the better residential homes.”

Staff knew people well and understood there individual care needs. People’s care plans were sufficiently detailed and informative and staff told us, “There is enough information in them”. We observed staff supporting one person to manager their anxiety, effectively using techniques described within their care plan. Prior to the inspection managers had identified that daily care and activities records could be improved and had provided staff with additional guidance on record keeping.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty on the day of our inspection and rotas showed these staffing levels were routinely achieved. The service had two part time care staff vacancies at the time of our inspection and was in the process of advertising them. Recruitment processes were robust and designed to ensure new staff were suitable for employment in the care sector.

The service employed a part time activities coordinator and people told us there were enough acti

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was safe. Staff understood their role in protecting people form abuse and avoidable harm.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and the service recruitment practices were safe.

Care plans included guidance for staff on how to protect people from risks and accident had been appropriately investigated.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was effective. Staff were well supported and sufficiently skilled to meet people care needs.

People’s choices were respected and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was caring. Staff knew people well and had developed caring and supportive relationships with people living at the service.

People’s privacy was respected and staff acted to ensure their dignity was protected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was responsive. People’s care plans were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance.

The service had a part time activities coordinator and people were supported to engage in a variety of activities within the service.

There were complaints systems in place and action was taken address any minor issue reported to staff.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was not entirely well led. The service is required to have a registered manager but at the time of this inspection there was no registered manager in place.

The acting manager was providing appropriate leadership to the staff team.

Quality assurance systems were appropriate and action had been taken to address and resolve all issues identified during previous inspections.