Merrymeet Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not provide sufficient detail about people’s individual risks, some of which were complex, and actions staff could take to mitigate those risks were not recorded. Care records for people did not record how the staff team should support people consistently and in a person-centred way.

People received their medication in a communal area as staff would give medicines from the small clinic room, situated off the lounge. We did see people asking staff for their medication or waiting to be given prescribed medicines in this area; however, this was not person-centred care. People’s preferences in how and where they wanted to receive their medication had not been fully explored with them and was not documented within care plans.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A resident contract given to people on admission to the home provided information about the service, for example the services on offer and details about the facilities. One person had been presented with information in an easy read format regarding the no smoking rules in the home.

We did see a noticeboard in the corridor displayed information containing out of date contact information for professional bodies; there was also a reminder for people to use a smoking room that no longer existed and brought this to the registered manager’s attention. We were assured action would be taken.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We were told by the registered manager the service had received no formal complaints, but we saw no systems or processes in place to record and manage these. Concerns or complaints raised by people were not recorded, nor was there any evidence of lessons learned and shared with people and staff.

People had access to complaint forms, were aware of how to make a complaint to the provider and had no concerns about doing so. The provider ensured the people had regular meetings, and these were documented, but people’s satisfaction with the food choices on offer were not explored during these meetings.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care plans did not always contain the appropriate level of detail in relation to people’s mobility, communication and medication needs. Care plans were basic and there were no individualised medication care plans in place. People with more complex needs might not receive the additional support they require to achieve equitable outcomes. This may lead to unequal access to safe and person-centred care.

People and staff felt the service was accessible for people and the provider ensured there were on-call arrangements in place to support staff and people with any out-of-hours emergencies.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There was evidence of meetings held with people, but we saw no other evidence of how the provider sought feedback from people and their relatives for their views on how the service might be improved. It was not clear how menus were devised or what daily food choices were on offer. No attempts to gauge and gather people’s opinions on this aspect of the service had been made.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Although the subject of end-of-life care planning can be distressing to discuss, there was no detailed information relating to people’s choices or preferences for the care they wished to receive from staff when approaching the end of their lives. If end of life wishes had been broached with people, any refusals to discuss this were not documented or recorded. Caring for people who may be approaching the end of their lives was not something the provider had considered or made plans for.