You are here

Archived: Meylan House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

We inspected Meylan House on 25 June 2015. It was an unannounced inspection. The service had not previously been inspected.

The service supports up to seven adults with learning disabilities and/or complex behavioural needs, as well as autism. At the time of the inspection there were four people using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Arrangements were in place to protect people who used the service from the risks of abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff and they were clear about their responsibilities to report abuse and where to report abuse outside of the organisation. Staff had received safeguarding training and records confirmed this. CQC had been notified of relevant incidents, which meant we could follow up any actions needed with the provider. The service had procedures to carry out checks out of hours to ensure care at these times was safe.

People had assessments which considered potential risks when they did activities and to ensure their health was protected.

Medicines were managed safely, which ensured people received the right medicine at the right time.

People were supported in a caring and respectful way. Appropriate health professionals had been consulted with where needed. Staff showed a caring approach to people in the service.

People were involved in menu planning, shopping and supported if they wanted to assist with food preparation. People liked the food and drink and mealtimes were relaxed and sociable. Risk assessments for eating and drinking had been completed and appropriate professional referrals made if risks were identified.

The provider, registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions or who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

Activities in the home were tailored to suit people’s individual needs and preferences and each person had a personal activity schedule. This included activities in the home as well as trips out into the community. Where they were able, people were involved in the running of the home. People were involved in the recruitment of new staff and had received training to help them with this.

There was an open culture and staff had access to the management team. One staff member told us they had been encouraged to suggest ways the service could improve. This had made them feel valued.

The staff had good relationships with relatives which helped communication. A relative commented “staff are always the same when I visit; they don’t seem to have bad days which is reassuring.”

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was safe. People were protected from harm. People had risk assessments and care plans that were used to identify and manage any risks associated with their care.

People were protected by staff who had good knowledge around the safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures.

Recruitment procedures were robust to ensure the right people were carrying out the care.

Medicines and other equipment were safely monitored.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was effective. People received the care in line with their assessed needs.

Staff had training and support to ensure they had the right skills and experience to meet people’s needs.

People were involved in their care and had choices around eating and drinking.

Managers and staff respected people and worked in their best interest.

People’s consent was obtained and best interest decisions made where necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was caring. Staff showed a commitment to involve people and treated people with kindness and dignity.

People were assisted to improve and maintain their wellbeing by being supported to access health services and professionals when needed.

People’s wishes and aspirations were asked about and recorded and discussed to help people achieve these.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was responsive.  People were involved in their care planning. People’s wishes and preferences were documented.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities and interests of their choosing. People were encouraged to share their interests and hobbies with others.

People had opportunities to make suggestions about the service with regular meetings and were involved in recruitment of staff. 

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 August 2015

The service was well led. Staff felt supported and enjoyed their job. There were a range of quality monitoring systems and these were used to continually improve the service.

The service communicated well with other professionals and external agencies were consulted when needed to support any changes or address any concerns about people.