Archived: Mary Fisher House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they felt they were supported by the staff. We observed people were treated as individuals and that staff acted upon what people said. We observed that people were treated with dignity by the staff. One person we spoke with said 'Staff are pleasant and helpful and I get the care needed.' Another said 'If I were not well they (staff) would get the doctor for me.'

The service had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). Senior staff had been trained in this area to help to protect people.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, audits, whistleblowing and investigations. We saw evidence that a recent audit of the recruitment processes in place had highlighted issues that were being addressed. The management team were ensuring that improvements occurred when they were required.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed by staff and where possible with people individually. Where this was not possible people's relatives were encouraged to be involved in this process. People were encouraged to live their life even if there were risks attached to this. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were assessed and risk assessments were in place and continued to be monitored, to help to protect people.

Help and advice was gained from relevant health care professionals in regard to people's health and wellbeing. We saw evidence in people's care records that advice gained from health care professionals was acted upon. Care plans and risk assessments were updated as people's needs changed. This ensured that people's needs were known and could be met.

Staff monitored and assisted people at mealtimes and encouraged them to eat. This helped to ensure that people's nutritional needs could be met. People we spoke with said 'The food is okay, there is enough of it.' Another person said 'The food is good. I can eat where I like.'

Is the service caring?

People were seen to be supported by staff who appeared to be patient and kind. Staff were seen to promote people's independence even if there were risks associated with this. This allowed people to live their life as they chose. Staff observed and offered assistance to help to maintain people's wellbeing

We saw staff spent some time with people, for example we saw staff sitting with someone to assist them to eat. Staff we spoke with told us they loved their job and enjoyed looking after people. People using the service said they were satisfied with how staff supported them. Where shortfall or concerns were raised by people these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

Information was provided to people about how to make a complaint. This was available in a format that met people's needs. Staff spent time observing people and asked people for their views. We saw that staff acted upon comments made to them to ensure they remained satisfied with the service they received.

We looked at how complaints were handled. No complaints had been received in 2014. Prior to this we saw a complaint was received which had been dealt with appropriately. People could be assured that complaints would be investigated and acted upon.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other health care professionals to ensure that people could receive the care they needed.

Quality assurance systems were in place. We found these had effectively picked up issues with staff recruitment procedures recently. The issues found were being addressed to ensure robust recruitment procedures were now in place. The quality of the service was being constantly reviewed and improved to help to protect all parties.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff we said they were happy working at the home. The ethos of the home was to provide a service which people were satisfied with.

People living at the home told us 'I can assure you they're doing their jobs properly' while another person said 'Oh yes, they keep everything nice and clean".

We did still find some areas which required improvement, but on the whole the home had made sufficient improvements to comply with the required standard.

We looked at people's care records. They included nutritional assessments and evidence that people's weight was monitored regularly. We saw that any concerns about people's welfare or specific care needs were discussed with the individual or their representative, or where necessary relevant healthcare professionals.

We found people's rights were respected and their consent to care was checked before care was provided.

We looked at how clean the home was. Although we noted the house was fresh-smelling and clean at first glance, when we looked further, some deep cleaning was required and some infection control procedures were not being followed. This was in toilet and bathroom areas and the main dining room. We also found despite cleaning audits being in place, they had failed to highlight problems around effective cleaning and infection control.

People told us the staff were very good and well trained. When we asked people if there was enough staff they told us they did not have to wait for attention and that staff were always available when they needed them. We spoke with members of staff during our inspection. They told us they felt supported by their colleagues and management of the home

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This included audits by the manager within the home and audits by the organisation.

We did not speak with people in detail about what it was like to live at Mary Fisher House. This visit concentrated on checking whether improvements had been made to the premises, mainly to the heating.

During our tour of the premises we also spent some of the time in the dining room and lounge and saw that some people were having their breakfast and others were sitting relaxed and contented in the lounge. On this inspection visit we found the home to be warm and comfortable and free from malodours.

We spoke with nine people who lived at Mary Fisher House. They all told us they were warm and comfortable.

We spoke with two visitors who also commented that they were very happy with the care staff, the cleanliness and the warmth in the home.

We spoke with four people living at the home and two relatives. Comments from people living at the home included: 'They help me such a lot if I need anything." and "They never rush me.". Comments from relatives included: 'I am very pleased with the home, staff and the care" and "I can leave here feeling totally relaxed."

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. We saw that all the people had received their medication at the required times for that day and at all other required times prior to our inspection.

There were problems with the heating on the day of our inspection. We have asked the provider to address this.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. We saw that the relevant pre employment checks were in place. This meant that the provider was assured that staff were suitable to work in the care industry.

People were given support and opportunities by staff at the home to make a comment or complaint. We saw that people living at the home were asked whether they had any complaints or concerns at the house meeting.