You are here

Archived: Mercers Place Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 April 2015

We inspected this service on the 22January 2015 and this inspection was unannounced. Mercers Place provides support and care for up to for up to seven people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were five people living in the service.

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.

People received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and aspirations. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming.

People felt safe, were treated with kindness, compassion and respect by the staff. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and encouraged to attend appointments with other healthcare professionals.

Staff listened to people and acted on what they said. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff understood how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Appropriate arrangements were in place to provide people with their medicines safely.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff with the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring and respectful manner.

People were supported by the manager and staff to make decisions about how they led their lives and how they wanted to be supported. People voiced their opinions and had their care needs provided for in the way they wanted. Where they lacked capacity, appropriate actions had been taken to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People were provided with a variety of meals and supported to eat and drink sufficiently. Staff encouraged people to be independent but where additional support was needed this was provided in a caring, respectful manner.

People were encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests and participated in a variety of personalised, meaningful activities. People knew how to make a complaint and any concerns were acted on promptly and appropriately.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service. The manager planned, assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently. Systems were in place that encouraged feedback from people who used the service, relatives, and visiting professionals and this was used to make continual improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 April 2015

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and knew how to respond and report any concerns about people’s welfare.

There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the right competencies, skills and experience to meet people’s needs. Staff understood how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care.

People received their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 April 2015

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s individual needs. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood by staff and appropriately implemented.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to ongoing healthcare support.

People were provided with enough to eat and drink. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and they were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 April 2015

The service was caring.

People had their privacy and dignity respected and were supported to maintain their independence. Staff were compassionate, attentive and respectful in their interactions with people.

Wherever possible, people were involved in making decisions about their care and their families were appropriately involved. Staff respected and took account of people’s individual needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 April 2015

The service was responsive.

People’s choices, views and preferences were respected and taken into account when staff provided care and support.

People were encouraged and supported with their hobbies and interests and participated in a range of personalised meaningful activities which ensured their social needs were met.

People knew how to complain and share their experiences. There was a complaints system in place to show that concerns were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 April 2015

The service was well-led.

There was an open and transparent culture at the service.

Staff were encouraged and supported by the manager and were clear on their roles and responsibilities.

People’s feedback was valued and acted on. Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and used to plan on-going improvements.