Background to this inspection
Updated
10 October 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications received from the provider and the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form we asked the provider to complete prior to our visit which gives us some key information about the service, including what the service does well, what the service could do better and improvements they plan to make.
We visited the home on 6 September 2018. Our inspection was unannounced and carried out by an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
During our inspection we spoke with six people using the service, one relative, the registered manager, two care workers, the activities coordinator, the chef and the two directors. We also spoke with a district nurse who was visiting the service. We looked at care records for three people, staff files for three staff members, medicines records for three people and other records relating to the running of the service.
After our inspection we contacted five health and social care professionals to obtain their feedback on the service although we did not receive feedback from any.
Updated
10 October 2018
Mary's Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Mary’s Home does not provide nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. The service supports up to 29 people with mental health issues. There were 25 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection
People were protected from abuse and staff received training in safeguarding adults at risk and understood their responsibilities. The provider followed suitable processes for any allegation of abuse to keep people safe.
The provider carried out recruitment checks on staff to check they were suitable to work with people. There were enough staff deployed to care for people safely and staff had time to engage with people meaningfully.
The provider managed risks relating to people’s care, including their mental health needs, through suitable risk assessment processes. Staff understood risks to people’s care and the support people required.
People’s medicines were managed safely by staff who the provider trained and checked were competent to administer medicines. The provider checked people received their medicines as prescribed.
People lived in premises which the provider maintained safely. The provider carried out a range of health and safety checks including fire safety, water hygiene and water temperatures, window restrictors, electrical and gas safety.
People were supported by staff who received the training and supervision they needed to understand people’s needs. New staff also received a suitable induction.
People’s care needs were assessed by the provider and people’s views and preferences were gathered by speaking with them. People’s care plans were based on their needs and preferences and were reviewed regularly so they were accurate and reliable to staff in following them. People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, their personal history, individual preferences and interests.
People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider applied to deprive some people of their liberty as part of keeping them safe as part of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People enjoyed the food they received and people received food in line with their preferences and cultural needs. People were supported to maintain their health and had regular contact with a team of mental health professionals.
People liked the staff who supported them. Staff were compassionate towards people and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were supportive of those who were in consenting relationships in the service. People were involved in decisions about their care.
People were encouraged to maintain and build their independent living skills. Some people were able to move into more independent living after receiving support from staff.
An activity officer engaged people in meaningful activities within the service. Those who were interested were supported to worship locally and a priest visited the service each week. People were supported to maintain and develop relationships which helped reduce social isolation.
A suitable complaints process was in place and the provider investigated and responded to any concerns raised.
Leadership was visible and competent with an experienced registered manager in post. The directors were accessible to people and staff, being present at the service most days. The management team carried out audits of the service to check the quality of care. Systems were in place to gather feedback from people and staff.