Archived: Melbourne House

Updated 23 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 7 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 23 February 2022

About the service:

We conducted an unannounced inspection at Melbourne House on 9 May 2019. Melbourne House is registered to accommodate up to 48 people who require nursing or personal care in one building over two floors, accessed by a passenger lift. On the day of our inspection, 31 people were present at the service. People had either nursing or residential care needs and some people were living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received safe care and treatment. People were protected as far as possible from the risk of avoidable harm or abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and action had been taken to report safeguarding concerns. Risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed and were monitored and reviewed to ensure staff had up to date information for people’s care.

Staffing levels and deployment of staff were sufficient and effective in providing safe and responsive care and treatment. People received their prescribed medicines safely and medicines were managed following best practice guidance. The prevention and control of infections were minimised due to infection control best practice being followed. Health and safety checks were completed regularly on the premises, environment and care equipment. Incidents were reviewed for themes and patterns and action was taken to reduce further risks.

People received effective care and treatment from staff who were trained, supported and knew them well. People received a choice of meals and drinks and their nutritional needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. Where people required support from staff with eating and drinking, this was provided in a caring, patient and sensitive way. This supported people to have a positive mealtime experience.

Staff worked effectively with external health professionals in assessing, monitoring and managing people’s health conditions and needs. Where people were unable to make specific decisions regarding their care, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles were applied. People were consistently supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and had been supported in the least restrictive way possible.

People received care and treatment from staff who had a kind, caring and person-centred approach. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and they had time to spend with people. People’s communication needs were known and understood by staff. People were invited to participate in a variety of social activities and opportunities for their social inclusion had been developed. People had access to the provider’s complaint policy and procedure. The service had received positive feedback from relatives about end of life care and treatment. However, the end of life care plans reviewed lacked specific personalised detail. The registered manager agreed to review this.

Staff were positive about their role and shared the registered manager’s values in providing person centred, open and transparent care. Staff were clear about their role and responsibilities; accountability and oversight structures and good governance systems were in place that continually monitored the quality and safety of the service. People, relatives and staff received opportunities to give feedback and this was used to develop the service. The provider and registered manager had met their registration regulatory requirements.

Rating of last inspection:

Requires Improvement (published 20 April 2018)

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled planned inspection based on the previous rating. The service has changed to a rating of ‘Good’.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit at the next scheduled inspection. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.