Archived: Magnolia House Residential Care Home

Magnolia House Residential Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the service.

Magnolia House Residential Care Home is required to have a registered manager. 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. A registered manager was in place.

Staff were aware of the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures and their role and responsibilities in keeping people safe. Risks to people’s needs had been assessed and plans were in place to inform staff of the action required to reduce and manage known risks. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately and analysed for patterns and trends. The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and they were recruited through safe recruitment practices. People received their medicines appropriately; where shortfalls were identified immediate action was taken to make the required improvements.

Staff received an appropriate induction when they commenced their employment and ongoing training, support and development opportunities. Where gaps in staff training had been identified training was arranged.

The registered manager had processes in place to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). New documentation was being introduced to ensure mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions made were decision specific. People’s rights were protected and understood by staff.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and choices were offered, drinks and snacks were available throughout the day. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

The provider worked well with external health professionals and people received support to maintain their health.

Staff communication and interaction with people was good. People described staff as caring and kind. Staff treated people with privacy, dignity and respect. People had information about independent advocacy services should they have required this support. Information about the complaints procedure was available for people.

Staff had information available about people’s individual needs, routines and preferences. Whilst staff knew people’s needs this was not always recorded in detail. People received opportunities to participate in activities that reflected their preferences and interests. People also received opportunities with their cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor quality and safety. People received opportunities if they wished to share their experience about the service they received. The provider visited the service regularly but had not completed audits and checks but this was to be addressed by the provider.

All people spoke very positively about the service and the staff. One person said, 'I am very happy with the care.' Another person said, 'It is very good care, there are no problems'. A family member told us of how their relative had improved since moving to the home. They said 'I am very pleased with the care.'

We found that every person had a service user handbook and person centred care plan. People and their families were involved in how the care and support was delivered. This demonstrated that people had agreed to the care and support and how it was delivered.

People's needs were assessed and person centred care plans developed. Individual risk assessments were undertaken with identified control measures to manage and reduce the risks. One family member told us that they had recently been involved in a review of their relatives care. This meant that staff had up to date information to meet people's needs in a way that they wanted.

We found that people's nutritional needs were met. Assessments were undertaken and referrals made to specialists when required. We found drinks were freely available and people were supported with their meals where necessary. Food and fluid charts were maintained where necessary. This meant that people were protected from the risks associated with lack of nutrition and hydration.

Systems were in place for cleanliness and infection control. We saw schedules and checks of cleaning as well as planned management of contagious diseases such as Norovirus. This meant that people were protected from the risk of spread of infections.

We found that robust procedures were in place for the recruitment of new staff. Staff were supported with their training needs. Appropriate action was taken where staff had been deemed unfit to work. This ensured that only staff with the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience provided care and support to people who lived at the home.

A visitor to the home told us, 'If I have any problems I go and see the manager and it is always dealt with. They also keep us informed of any changes in my relative's health.'

People using the service were receiving care that was centred on them as an individual and staff had considered how to maintain their dignity when carrying out personal care and support.

The provider was monitoring the quality of the service provided and people who used the service were consulted about their satisfaction with the services provided.