Archived: Meyrick Rise

We found the following examples of good practice.

Safe practices were in place for welcoming visitors to the home. These included rapid COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene. Vaccination status was checked for all visiting professionals and records of staff vaccinations were maintained. Staff testing for COVID-19 was at the frequency in line with government guidance and a process was in place for monitoring testing within the home.

People told us they happy and felt safe living at Meyrick Rise. We spoke with people informally as we walked through the home who were complimentary about the staff. One person said, “I love it here, especially the food and the staff are so kind.” The manager and staff at the home had worked hard to keep people safe. Policies and procedures within the home were robust and frequent auditing meant that the home worked safely and within good practice and government guidelines. The regional support manager told us they had a good team of staff saying, “We are proud of the team and how resilient they have been.”

Supplies of PPE were in good supply, stock checks maintained, and we observed staff wearing this correctly. Staff had training in infection prevention and control and were shown how to put on and take off PPE correctly. The home was a good standard of cleanliness. Emergency procedures in place meant that the home could operate under pressures such as an outbreak or staff shortages. Domestic staff worked hard to keep all areas of the home clean and tidy including frequently touched areas such as door handles and handrails.

People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visiting restrictions changed and the home adapted its policies, practices and communicated to people and their relatives verbally, email or by telephone. Risk assessments were completed for all aspects of care and support including additional risks related to COVID-19. Specific risk assessments had been completed for staff.

Meyrick Rise is registered to accommodate up to 75 people and provides care, treatment and support for older people. The service is split over two floors which were all accessible by stairs or a lift. There were 37 people using the service at time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe living at Meyrick Rise. The staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to meet people’s individual needs. People’s outcomes were known, and staff worked with people to help achieve these. People were supported and encouraged to maintain their independence and live their lives as fully as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to maintain contact with those important to them including family and friends. Staff understood the importance of these contacts for people’s health and well-being. Staff knew people well and gave individualised care and support.

The management of the service were respected. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and were supported to reflect on their practice and pursue learning opportunities. The staff team worked and got on well together demonstrating team work.

Quality and safety checks helped ensure people were safe and protected from harm. This meant the service could continually improve. Audits helped identify areas for improvement and this learning was shared with staff.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 8 August 2018) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Meyrick Rise was registered for 73 people. There were 31 older people living in the home at the start of our inspection. People had a variety of care and support needs related to their physical and mental health.

This unannounced inspection took place on 5 and 7 June 2018. This was our first inspection of the service since the provider had changed.

There was not a registered manager for the service. 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. There had been an unsettled period of management at the home. A new manager had been appointed and they were starting the process to register with the CQC.

Staff understood most of risks people faced. However, the risks people faced were not always recorded and shared consistently and care delivery did not always act to reduce these risks. People did not always receive their medicines as they were prescribed. The provider put plans into action to respond to these concerns.

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. However, care plans did not always reflect that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that was not in their best interests or was overly restrictive. The failure to apply the MCA appropriately had led to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards not being applied for when necessary for a person. The provider started to address this immediately.

Quality assurance systems had not been effective in identifying the issues identified during our inspection. Auditing processes were updated to improve their efficacy.

Everyone described the food as good. The systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink were not effective and people’s meal time experience was varied. The provider put plans in place to address this immediately.

Care staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s on-going care needs and spoke confidently about the support people needed to meet most of these needs. Some people were not, however, receiving care as outlined in their care plans and this put them at risk. We highlighted these concerns and were told this would be addressed immediately.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and had undertaken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider.

People had support and care from staff who had been safely recruited.

People were engaged with activities that reflected their preferences, including individual and group activities. People and relatives felt that they were listened to and their views were considered and acted upon.

The environment was clean and maintained.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and respond to abuse and told us they would whistle blow if it was necessary

People were largely positive about the care they received from the home and told us the staff were kind. Staff were cheerful and treated people and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.

There were breaches of regulation with respect of safe care and treatment, the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, person centred care and the governance of the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.