• Care Home
  • Care home

Marika House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Stoneymarsh, Michelmersh, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 0LB 0845 094 9295

Provided and run by:
Liaise (South) Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out this inspection from 19 August 2025 to 1 September 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to people with a learning disability and autistic people. There were 7 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. We assessed this service due to receiving information of concern. We inspected 33 quality statements. This service had previously been rated good.

We found 2 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care and governance.

People were not supported to eat healthily and were not always engaged in meaningful activities. The provider’s internal monitoring systems failed to identify all of the concerns we found during this inspection and robust action had therefore not been taken to make improvements. The registered manager and provider were motivated to improve the service and started addressing these shortfalls during the inspection.

Where risk to people had been identified staff understood how to keep people safe. People were supported to have choice and control in some areas, could give feedback on their care, and were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness and respect. Medicines were stored, documented, and administered safely.

Staff were recruited safely and received appropriate training and supervision. Staff were trained to raise and respond to safeguarding concerns both internally and to external agencies.

The service learned from incidents and action was taken to ensure improvements were made where needed. The service was not always well maintained, however, areas for improvement had been identified and actions to rectify this were in progress. A new registered manager was in post and the provider had started taking action prior to and during our inspection to make improvements.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence, and good access to local communities which most people take for granted. We found people did not always receive care and support in accordance with the principles of this guidance.

26 June 2017

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection and took place on the 26 June 2017. The inspection was planned in response to some concerns that had been shared with the Care Quality Commission.

The service provides care and support for up to seven people who may have a learning disability, a mental health condition or physical disabilities. Some people using the service displayed behaviours that were challenging to others and required interventions from staff to keep them and others safe. Some people could not speak with us due to their difficulty in communicating.

There is a registered manager at Marika House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The provider had outstanding arrangements in place to assess, monitor, analyse and learn from incidents where people’s behaviours challenged. Exceptional outcomes were achieved for people because the provider had gone the extra mile to implement excellent person centred training for staff which was specific to people’s individual health and social circumstances.

Staff received training appropriate to people’s needs and were regularly monitored by a senior member of staff to ensure they delivered effective care. Where people displayed physical behaviours that challenged others, staff responded appropriately by using redirection techniques and only used physical interventions as a last resort. Records showed the provider monitored incidents where physical interventions were used and had informed the local authority, behavioural support teams and healthcare professionals and the Care Quality Commission when these types of techniques were used.

Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with advocacy agencies, healthcare professionals and family members to ensure decisions made in people’s best interests were reached and documented appropriately

People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty without authorisation from the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place for people and accurately described the content detailed in people’s authorisations.

People were protected from possible harm. Staff were able to identify the different signs of abuse and were knowledgeable about the homes safeguarding processes and procedures. They consistently told us they would contact CQC and the local authority if they felt someone was at risk of abuse. Notifications sent to CQC and discussions with the local authority safeguarding team confirmed this.

Staff interacted with people and showed respect when they delivered care. Relatives and healthcare professionals consistently told us staff engaged with people effectively and encouraged people to participate in activities. People’s records documented their hobbies, interests and described what they enjoyed doing in their spare time.

Records showed staff supported people regularly to attend various health related appointments. Examples of these included visits to see the GP, hospital appointments and assessments with other organisations such as the community mental health team.

People received support that met their needs because staff regularly involved them in reviewing their care plans. Records showed reviews took place on a regular basis or when someone’s needs changed.

The service had an open culture where people told us they were encouraged to discuss what was important to them. We consistently observed positive interaction between staff and people.

20 November 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection.

The service provides care and support for up to five people who may have a learning disability, a mental health condition or physical disabilities. Some people using the service displayed behaviours that were challenging to others are required physical interventions from staff to keep them and others safe. Some people could not speak with us due to difficulty in communicating effectively.

There is a registered manager at Marika House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Record showed the provider monitored incidents where behaviours were and responded promptly by informing the local authority safeguarding team, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), behavioural support team and advocacy agencies.

Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with advocacy agencies, healthcare professionals and family members to ensure decisions made in people’s best interests were appropriately documented.

People were not unlawfully deprived of their liberty without authorisation from the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place for people and accurately described the content detailed in people’s authorisations.

People were protected from possible harm. Staff were able to identify the different signs of abuse and were knowledgeable about the homes safeguarding processes and procedures. They consistently told us they would contact CQC and the local authority if they felt someone was at risk of abuse. Notifications sent to CQC and discussions with the local authority safeguarding team confirmed this.

Staff received training appropriate to people’s needs and were regularly monitored by a senior member of staff to ensure they delivered effective care. Where people displayed physical behaviours that challenged others, staff responded appropriately by using redirection techniques and only used restraint as a last resort. Records showed the provider had informed the local authority and healthcare professionals when this was applied. Records of physical restraint and challenging behaviours were used as part of people’s care reviews to consider the least restrictive intervention.

Staff interacted with people and showed respect when they delivered care. Relatives and healthcare professionals consistently told us staff engaged with people effectively and encouraged people to participate in activities. People’s records documented their hobbies, interests and described what they enjoyed doing in their spare time.

Records showed staff supported people regularly to attend various health related appointments. Examples of these included visits to see the GP, hospital appointments and assessments with other organisations such as the community mental health team.

People received support that met their needs because staff regularly involved them in reviewing their care plans. Records showed reviews took place on a regular basis or when someone’s needs changed.

The service had an open culture where people told us they were encouraged to discuss what was important to them. We consistently observed positive interaction between staff and people.

27 September 2013

During a routine inspection

Records showed that people's care plans and behavioural risk assessments were regularly reviewed. Staff told us that the information in people's care plans was up to date, accurate and reflected people's needs. We spoke with a relative who said "The last review I went to had eight people there. Many professionals and I was pleased with the review".

People who use the service 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.

During our visit we inspected the storage and records of medicines held in the home. We saw that all medicines were stored in a locked cabinet. This meant that medicines were kept safely. A controlled drugs register was used for recording the administration of controlled drugs.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before care workers began work. We looked at the personnel records for four care workers. These confirmed that they had been interviewed, that references had been requested and that the provider had completed appropriate background checks before they started work at the home.

Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. We spoke with five members of staff who all told us that people's care records were located safely in the office and told us that they could access the records when necessary.

28 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People who lived at Marika House had complex needs and were not able to tell us what they thought about the care and support provided. We spent time in the home observing the support they received. We saw that members of staff were friendly and respectful. Members of staff knew how each person living at the home communicated. This meant there were positive interactions between staff and people living at the home, with the choices of people being respected. Members of staff were quick to respond if anyone appeared unhappy or distressed.