We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mercury House 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 Mercury House, you can give feedback on this service.
Mercury House is a residential care home for up to three people who are living with autism and/or learning disabilities. There were two people living at the home at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We were assured that systems were in place to prevent the spread of infection.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published May 2019).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted due to concerns we identified about infection control with regard to Covid-19. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe section of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mercury House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
Mercury House is a residential care home that was providing personal and accommodation for up to three people living with a learning disability or autism.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways:
¿ People received a service that was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.
¿ The service had the characteristics of a good service in all areas.
¿ Systems were in place to keep people safe.
¿ People’s needs were met by suitable numbers of staff who knew them well.
¿ People received their medicines as prescribed.
¿ People were protected from the risk of infection.
¿ People were involved in meal planning and were supported to assist with cooking.
¿ People were treated with kindness and respect and staff spoke fondly about them.
¿ People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
¿ People received personalised care which was responsive to their individual needs.
¿ People enjoyed a range of activities which they chose to do.
¿ People had support plans in place which covered a range of information about their social histories, preferences and support needs.
¿ The provider had a complaints procedure in place.
¿ The registered manager and provider involved people in the management of the service by putting them central to any decisions.
Rating at last inspection:
At our last inspection (report published 5 April 2018) we rated the service as Requires Improvement.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned comprehensive inspection.
Follow up:
We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. The home is a semi-detached, three bedded house on a housing estate. There is a lounge with dining area, kitchen, office and shower room downstairs and three bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. The back garden is laid concrete paving.
This was the first inspection of Mercury House and took place on 23 and 25 January 2018. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The provider did not have a robust recruitment procedure in place and did not always gain satisfactory evidence of conduct and reasons for staff leaving previous care related employment.
Risk assessments identified when people were at risk from every day activities, but for one person an identified risk had not led to a risk assessment or care plan being put in place to protect the person. There was not a risk assessment for the building and garden which meant potential risks to people’s health and safety when accessing these areas had not been identified.
Medicines were not managed safely. Records were not complete and did not accurately detail how much medication there should be for each person. Care plans were not in place for medicines prescribed as “when required.”
The provider had policies and procedures in place designed to protect people from abuse but some staff had not completed training in safeguarding people. This meant staff may not be aware or identify any safeguarding concerns.
The registered manager said staff received an induction to the home but there was not a record of this on file. Training was available, but not all staff completed relevant training to support the needs of the people they worked with. Staff were supported in their work through regular supervisions.
The home appeared clean but the registered manager was not aware of current guidance relating to infection control. However, there were cleaning schedules in place and the home appeared clean.
People’s needs were assessed and their preferences understood before they moved to the service. People were supported by suitable numbers of staff who developed caring relationships with people. People were supported to maintain family relationships and friendships.
We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive people of their liberty were being met. We found they were.
Although staff knew people’s needs well, care plans varied in the relevance of the information. People were supported to be actively involved in making decisions about their care. Staff offered to support people and waited for consent before they did so. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when supporting them with personal care. Staff cooked meals for people, who chose when and where they wanted to eat.
The provider had not established an accessible system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by people using the service or their representatives. There was not a complaints procedure in place.
There was a quality audit system in place which included weekly checks, for example, health and safety and fire equipment. However, this was not effective as it did not identify the concerns we found.
The service was open and inclusive and promoted a positive culture for people to live in. The service informally sought the views of people, their family members and staff. The service had started to learn, improve and innovate and worked in partnership with other agencies. The registered manager ensured improvements were made to systems when things had gone wrong or were identified as having the potential to go wrong. The registered manager and staff worked together within and across organisations to deliver effective care and support
We identified breaches of four regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have taken at the back of the full version of the report.