Merrymeet Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We received positive feedback from people about the care and compassion shown by staff. Good relationships had been established. One person told us, “They [staff] are very nice. [They are] always there to discuss your problems.” People also told us they felt safe and considered staff were ‘protective.’ One person told us, “I sleep through and I don’t need help.” Another person said, “Staff are very kind; [they are] very good to me.”

We also observed people who lived at Merrymeet Residential Care Home treating each other with kindness. People were happy to spend time in communal areas with others.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s aims and what they wanted from the service were not documented. It was not clear from people’s care plans how staff could best support their wellbeing. There were no details about what people considered to be important to them in the care plan.

Daily notes we saw did not always reflect social interactions and meaningful engagement from staff. We did see staff speaking with people in the communal areas. Mealtime and people’s food preferences were not recorded.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There was little evidence of any specific activities taking place. People could choose to do artwork and chair exercises with external visitors to the home every fortnight.

We were told take up for activities and entertainment was limited; partly due to people’s health conditions and lifestyles. During our 2-day inspection we observed people were not asked or encouraged to participate in any ad-hoc activities. There was no detail recorded in daily notes about activities people had participated in over the course of a day, or what people liked to do.

We observed people who were independent leaving the home on a regular basis to access the community or go shopping, as per their preference.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Records we saw did not provide assurance that staff always responded to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

One person had experienced pain and discomfort in the days between our visits. This had resulted in hospitalisation on 1 occasion and the input from health professionals on another. Despite being prescribed strong pain relief medication on a ‘as required’ [PRN] basis, this had not been offered or suggested by staff.

Whilst the provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, they did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We were not assured staff were provided with the opportunities to speak up in team meetings as these did not take place regularly. Despite this, staff felt supported by management. They told us they were able to raise points informally with both registered managers.

Whilst the provider seemed to retain staff, the wellbeing of staff was not fully explored as supervisions, appraisals, and staff surveys were not regularly taking place.