You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

Meavy View is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 32 people older people. The three-storey building is purpose built and a passenger lift is provided to all floors. Twenty-eight single and two double bedrooms are provided. One single and one double room have en-suite facilities. The home is located approximately one mile from Rochdale town centre, close to a small shopping precinct and Post Office. It is near to local public transport routes. There were 28 people accommodated at the home during the inspection.

This is the first rated inspection for this service since the home changed providers. Prior to the inspection we received a concern from a whistle blower which we investigated during the inspection.

A manager was in post and was given the news that they had been successful with their registration with the Care Quality Commission during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The manager had been in post since September 2017.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. However, we have made a recommendation that the provider looks at best practice information around more personalised care plans and recording people’s end of life wishes.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

The home was clean, tidy and homely in character. The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.

People were given choices in the food they ate and told us it was good. People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.

Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of therr responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

We saw from our observations of staff and records that people who used the service were given choices in many aspects of their lives and helped to remain independent where possible.

We saw that people were able to attend activities of their choice and families and friends were able to visit when they wanted.

Audits, surve

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was safe.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding issues. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Arrangements were in place to ensure medicines were safely administered. Staff had been trained in medicines administration and managers audited the system and staff competence.

Staff were recruited robustly to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained in the MCA and DoLS and should recognise what a deprivation of liberty is or how they must protect people’s rights.

People were given a nutritious diet and said the food provided at the service was good.

Induction, training and supervision gave staff the knowledge and support they needed to satisfactorily care for the people who used the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was caring.

We observed staff had a kind and caring approach to people who used the service.

People were encouraged and supported to keep in touch with their family and friends.

We saw that people were offered choice in many aspects of their lives and encouraged to remain independent.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was responsive.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns.

People were able to join in activities suitable to their age, gender and ethnicity.

Plans of care were regularly reviewed and contained sufficient details for staff to deliver their care. However, these would benefit from being more person centred.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care and service provision at this care home.

Policies, procedures and other relevant documents were reviewed regularly to help ensure staff had up to date information.

All the people and staff we spoke with told us they felt supported and could approach managers when they wished.