We carried out a review of the data available to us about Micron House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Micron House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and were observed to wear this correctly and in accordance with current government guidelines.
There was a clear process in place to monitor vaccination status and testing for staff and people at the service.
People were admitted into the home safely.
People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones through home visits. Visitors were able to see their loved ones where it was most comfortable for them.
Micron House is a residential care home. The care home accommodates 10 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 10 people were living there.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe and staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse. People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed.
People were supported by enough staff that had been safely recruited. Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff had access to personal protective equipment.
Accidents and incidents were monitored and reviewed. The registered manager informed us of incidents as required by law.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access healthcare agencies when required.
People told us staff were kind in their approach. People told us their dignity and privacy were maintained and they were involved in the planning and review of their care.
People received care that was responsive to their needs. Care records were reflective of people’s support needs and were up to date. The provider had a complaints process in place which people were aware of and knew how to access.
The provider had quality, auditing and monitoring systems in place which included competency checks on staff practice. People and staff said the provider and management team were approachable and the culture of the organisation open and friendly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published January 25 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.
This was an announced inspection which took place on 16 December 2015. Micron House provides accommodation with personal care for 10 older people. At the time of this inspection 10 people were living at the home. When we last inspected the home in May 2013 the provider was compliant with the regulations we assessed.
There was a registered manager at the home. 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.
We received a high level of praise from people and their relatives in relation to this home. They were very complimentary about the quality of the care they received. We found the registered manager and staff were motivated and committed to providing a high standard of care to people.
People had no concerns about their safety, risks to their safety had been identified and staff had training in how to recognise abuse. The review of incidents needed to be more robust to ensure all incidents of a safeguarding nature are recognised and reported.
Staff were recruited in a safe way and had relevant training and support to enhance their skills in providing people with quality care. There were enough trained and experienced staff to support people and meet their needs in a personalised manner.
People had their medicines when they needed them and the arrangements for the management of people’s medicines was safe.
Care was focused on people’s individual needs and we saw this was effective in managing risks to their health such as falling or developing pressure sores.
Staff were aware of how to support people’s rights, seek their consent and respect their choices. We saw staff worked within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure that the human rights of people who may lack capacity to make decisions are protected. We saw staff understood the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to deprive someone of their liberty to ensure the safety.
People were happy with the meals offered and were supported to have the meals that they enjoyed. Drinks were offered throughout the day to prevent the risk of dehydration. People’s health was supported by access to appropriate health professionals.
We saw that staff were attentive and caring towards people. People described the staff as being friendly and kind. Relatives told us the staff were polite, patient and respectful towards people. Relatives told us how they had been supported during and after their family member’s death and that staff had displayed a great deal of compassion.
People told us that they were happy living at the home. They knew how to raise any concerns if they needed to and we saw arrangements were in place to listen and act upon any concerns.
People enjoyed a range of activities which were tailored to meet their individual interests and encourage their independence.
People described the management of the home as very friendly and approachable. Staff felt supported by the provider who was also the registered manager and worked in the home daily. We found quality monitoring systems were in place. The registered manager had continued to make improvements so that the home was run in the best interests of the people who lived there. The registered manager had kept their own knowledge and learning up to date which ensured they were aware of new initiatives to enhance the quality of care provided.
People we spoke with told us that staff supported them appropriately and met their needs. One person told us, 'I am quite content here, and I am happy with everything'. Another person told us, 'I am well looked after here, the staff help me when I need them to and they are respectful'.
We found that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were in place. The staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people's needs. This ensured people received support in a way they preferred.
People told us they knew how to report any concerns they had about their own safety. We saw staff had training to assist them in protecting people from harm.
We found that improvements had been made with the systems for administering people's medication.
People we spoke with were positive about the staff team. The staff members we spoke with confirmed they were supported by their manager so that they could deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
People and staff we spoke with told us that they felt able to raise concerns about the service.
People told us they were happy with the care and support provided. One person said, 'I am very comfortable here, as comfortable as the queen, I am looked after well'. Another person told us, 'It is very homely here, we are like one big family, I am happy here'.
People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity and they confirmed they were given choices about their care, how they spent their day and about what food they wanted to eat.
We saw that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were in place. Staff spoken to were able to tell us about people's needs. This ensures they receive support in a way they prefer.
We found that improvements were required to ensure medication was stored and administered safely.
We found that arrangements were effective in reducing the risk and spreading of infection.
Recruitment processes ensured that staff employed there were suitable to work with the people living there to ensure they were safe.
We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.
We also observed two people who were unable to tell us about their experiences. One person having end of life care remained in bed. Their relative told us that the staff and managers were very caring, and they were involved in making best interest decisions. We saw that people's privacy and dignity was respected, for example by staff knocking on doors and waiting to enter. Most bedrooms had ensuite facilities and door locks, which could be opened from the outside in an emergency. Although people and families told us that the home was always clean, we saw that some cleaning standards and infection control measures needed to improve.
People said:
'I think they're honest here and give you time to consider what you want ",
'If I don't want to go to bed I can sit in the lounge with the carers".
Relatives said:
'She always looks nice and has her hair done regularly".
'I know they'll phone the doctor if she's ill, they always have".
'If my Nan says she wants to stay she's happy".