Meyrick Cottage

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident they would be listened to.A relative said, “If I had any concerns I would contact the registered manager. I believe the registered manager would try to resolve my concerns efficiently and promptly.”

The registered manager told us lessons learned were discussed and information shared with staff through handovers, staff meetings and supervisions.

Staff confirmed they were informed of relevant incidents and lessons learnt were shared with them. This was done through handovers, reflective practice and supervisions.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Paper-based summaries of people’s needs and relevant medicines information were available to staff in case of an emergency hospital admission.

The registered manager told us staff would accompany people to hospital and take communication aids if required. This supported safety and continuity of care.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe at the service. A person said, “I feel very safe.” A relative told us, “Ihave always felt that the service gives safe care to my family member.”

Staff received training in safeguarding and the provider had a safeguarding policy in place. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns with the registered manager. A staff member told us, “Staff are hardworking and trustworthy, and needs of the residents are met.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of theirliberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS. This meant people’s rights were fully respected.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and managed.

Staff knew people well and responded to people’s risks in a person-centred way. When people communicated their needs, emotions or distress, staff supported them in a positive way. This had protected their rights, dignity and maximised learning for the future about the causes of their distress.

People were involved in planning their care and making day to day decisions. We observed staff working safely with people. People were supported to spend time doing activities they enjoyed.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. For example, window restrictors were in place and radiators were covered to maintain people’s safety. People’s bedrooms were personalised and decorated.

People told us they liked living at the service. A person said, “I like my room. It's very nice and tidy. I like living here.”

The provider used external contractors to assess and manage various systems. For example, gas and electric safety and the fire system.

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) were kept within the service's emergency grab bag and people’s folders. PEEPs provide staff and emergency service personnel with critical information on the evacuation needs of each person in the event of an emergency. This meant information was easily accessible.

In care homes we check whether there are risks from the environment. Some wardrobes were not secured to the wall, which meant there was a risk they could fall and injure a person, we raised this with the registered manager. In response to our feedback the registered manager organised for all wardrobes to be secured to the wall.

The provider had an action plan to address any maintenance matters and was planning to repaint one of the bedrooms and replace the carpet on the stairs in the hallway.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff had regular supervisions and attended team meetings. The registered manager confirmed staff’s performance was checked outside of normal working hours, including at nighttime. This meant there was regular oversight of care delivery across a 24 hour period.

Training records showed staff had the necessary training, skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff confirmed they completed face to face and online training. A staff member told us, “Training is good.”

Recruitment procedures in place were robust to ensure the required checks were carried out on staff before they commenced their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for staff to use when needed.

The provider had an infection control policy in place and staff completed relevant training.

We observed the service to be clean on both days of our inspection. People were supported to complete small domestic tasks around the service. Staff told us they were aware of the importance of cleanliness and hygiene and had access to PPE.

At the time of the inspection the service held a food hygiene rating of 5 which meant hygiene standards were very good and fully complied with the law.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People and their relatives were happy with how medicines were managed and raised no concerns.

Staff told us they received training in administering medicines and had ongoing competency assessments. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns relating to medicines and what to do if a medicines error had occurred.

Creams were dated when opened so staff knew when to dispose of them. Medicines and creams were stored safely. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow. During this inspection, the registered manager updated protocols for 'as required' medicines, to include more comprehensive guidance for staff when they were administering to people who may not communicate verbally.

Medicine audits were completed monthly to identify any concerns. Policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow to support the safe administration of medicines.

The registered manager confirmed people were supported to attend their annual medicines reviews.