We carried out a review of the data available to us about Munhaven on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Munhaven, you can give feedback on this service.
The manager had drawn up a development plan in the early stages of the pandemic, to go with risk assessments, on actions they needed to take and systems they needed to implement to keep people who used the service safe. This had been reviewed as guidance had changed and from lessons learnt.
Relatives had been visiting people in the service in a specially designed pod in the garden which allowed for two relatives to visit at the same time with a large screen between them and the person who lived in service. Plans were in place for visits to continue inside during the colder weather which would keep people who used the service and their visitors safe from COVID-19.
The manager had made additional arrangements to ensure that people receiving end of life care could have visitors
The manager had recognised the risk to people of isolation and had employed an activities co-ordinator to help improve the wellbeing of the people who lived in the service and continued links with the local community
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Munhaven is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 20 people aged 65 and over who are living with dementia. The home accommodates people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 20 people were living there.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Since the last inspection the registered manager has continued to drive improvements in the service, promoting and achieving exceptionally positive outcomes for people.
Staff ensured people were always provided with care that kept them safe. Relatives had full confidence in the staff managing any potential risks to people using the service. Medication was managed very effectively and where possible, people were supported to reduce the amount of medicine they were taking.
Staff training was excellent and leads in designated care areas ensured people continuously received highly personalised standards of care. This included nutritional and hydration support with input from health care professionals when needed. 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 and relatives told us about, and we saw staff delivering extremely sensitive and compassionate care. Staff developed open and highly trusting relationships with people and their relatives and this maximised the benefit of the care provided. People were encouraged to live their lives as independently as possible and staff ensured people’s dignity was upheld. People were encouraged to have a voice.
Every aspect of the service was person-centred and staff were passionate about promoting people’s wellbeing. Staff responded exceptionally well to any changes in people’s needs. We observed engaging and empowering relationships between staff and people. The service actively helped people avoid social isolation. People and relatives had confidence that if there were any issues these would be quickly resolved. End of Life care and support was extremely good.
The registered manager demonstrated exceptional leadership. The service was extremely well managed and governed. Staff and the registered manager embraced a culture of placing people at the heart of everything at Munhaven. Equality and diversity was promoted and there was a desire at all levels for continuous improvement. Engagement with the community and other stakeholders involved in care provision was extremely good.
The service met the characteristics of outstanding in effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published October 2016)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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 was a registered manager in post.
People were safe living in the home and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse and had received relevant safeguarding training. The home had thorough risks assessments in place to provide guidance to staff to keep people safe. There were enough staff to provide people with safe care.
Staff were competent in their roles and received relevant training, and they had dementia champions in place. The home supported people to access healthcare when they needed, as well as to eat a good choice of freshly made and to drink a sufficient amount. There were drinks available throughout the day in all areas of the home.
People had individualised support plans in place which included their likes and dislikes, and their personal histories. Staff knew people well.
Without exception, people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff asked for consent before delivering care, and supported people to make their own choices. People’s relatives were involved with their care when appropriate, and the home actively supported people’s relationships with their loved ones.
There were activities on offer which included daily in house sessions such as games or pampering, as well as regular visiting entertainment such as singers. People were engaged with staff and supported with their communication.
The registered manager was supportive to their team, who had a good morale and consistent approach to working with people. There were systems in place for monitoring and improving the quality of the service.
We saw that staff interactions with people were relaxed and friendly. Where we observed that tasks were being carried out staff spoke with people light-heartedly and calmly. This helped ensure that the person's experience of being supported was positive.
Information was provided in various formats to help people make decisions. A written menu for lunch was on a blackboard outside the dining room. Pictorial menus were on tables and when the food was served the options were taken to people so they could see and choose what they would like.
We viewed the care records for four people living at Munhaven. Information was available on people's life histories which helped ensure that staff could relate to them as individuals.
Improvements to the environment had been made since our last inspection in December 2012.
We saw that people were offered a varied and nutritious diet that was appropriate to their individual needs. Special diets were catered for. We saw people being discreetly assisted to eat their lunch and to have drinks throughout the day.
We looked at the processes in place for the safe storage and handling of medicines. We saw that only trained staff dealt with medicines and that safe procedures were in place.
People spoke warmly about the staff although they felt there were not enough of them. Staff were busy but always gave a cheerful response when walking past people living at the home.
Staff were aware if people were unhappy or ill at ease and spoke with people to establish what they could do to make them feel better. The complaints procedure was not on the noticeboard when we arrived, but the acting manager placed a copy in the entrance hall when we left so that people were informed on how to complain.
Because some people were not able to communicate verbally with us, we observed how staff treated them. We saw that staff were respectful and kind. They offered care and support discreetly and ensured that people's privacy and dignity was not compromised. Staff engaged people in meaningful activities and this produced much laughter and fun.