Merrington Grange

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. There were systems in place to report and record accidents and incidents. These were thoroughly investigated and used to inform changes to service user care and support. The provider shared lessons learnt through team meetings and during staff supervisions. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider 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.

The provider carried out initial assessments of people prior to them moving to the service and from this a transition plan was put into place which included meeting people and their families to ensure the service could meet the people’s needs. A relative told us “Merrington staff did visit (Person’s) home to discuss their needs and how they were able to support them. There was a gradual build up to full time living there starting with a couple of weekends.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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 provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding systems and processes were in place to identify, report and investigate allegations of abuse.

Relatives told us people were safe. One relative shared with us “We never have any concerns regarding his safety and well-being. We always feel completely relaxed and content that he is in safe hands.”

There was 1 safeguarding concern which was investigated and learning shared with staff at team meetings. The provider had logs and records which showed appropriate action had been taken at the time of the incident. Reports were shared with us at the time.

Staff had a good level of knowledge regarding safeguarding; they could tell us how they would recognise signs of abuse and what action they would take.

The provider worked with people, their relatives and external professionals to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. Individual care plans and risk assessments contained details for staff to follow to ensure people remained safe within their own home and within the community. This meant when people took part in activities such as swimming and cycling there were measures in place to ensure they were kept safe.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider ensured equipment was serviced and checked by external contractors to help maintain its safety. For example, fire equipment and electrical safety checks were completed as required by regulation.

We found some window restrictors could be tampered with. The provider raised this as an action for repair during the inspection. The environment itself looked tired in places. Plans were in place for refurbishment. There was evidence of refurbished bathrooms and overall, the environment appeared clean. People confirmed they had been involved in the choices regarding decoration of their rooms. The garden was accessible with furniture appropriately placed for people to use.

Each person at the home had a personal emergency evacuation plan. This is a document which describes the help a person will need to evacuate the service in an emergency. This was available to staff to ensure they knew how to respond to emergencies.

The provider 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 which met people’s individual needs.

We found recruitment practices had improved since our previous inspection. There were some vacancies which the provider had plans in place to support recruitment. The provider followed safe recruitment processes and had made the necessary checks before staff worked with vulnerable people.

We found evidence of some refresher training being overdue for existing staff members. We saw evidence to show this training had been booked for staff to attend. Training was monitored by the registered manager, there were sufficient processes in place to ensure staff attend regular training, and shortfalls are identified.

There were suitable numbers of staff available to meet people’s assessed needs, including 1:1 support where this had been commissioned.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They did not always take appropriate measures to reduce the risk of infection spreading.

We saw throughout the environment painted wooden surfaces in poor condition which meant effective cleaning and disinfection could not take place. Records of cleaning were maintained, and we observed cleaning taking place during our visit. Infection control audits were completed. These were then checked by the registered manager, who logged any actions identified.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People had protocols in place which detailed why they were taking the medicines and how they wished them to be administered.

Staff administering the medication were trained and their competency assessed to ensure the learning had been embedded.

Medicines were stored appropriately, and regular checks were made to ensure storage temperatures were within manufacturer’s guidelines.

Where people required medicines as and when required, there were detailed instructions to advise staff when to administer them.