Magnolia House Care Home

Updated 1 January 2019

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 12 December 2018. The inspection was unannounced by one hour.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector, one assistant inspector and one expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also looked at information we had received about the service since it was registered, such as notifications about significant incidents, and information from people who use the service, staff, relatives and other professionals.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the supervisor, the provider, a senior care assistant and two care staff. We also spoke with 14 people who lived in the service and one relative. We looked at the care planning system including two care plans in detail. We also looked at four recruitment records, training records, medicine administration systems, records of money held on behalf of people living in the home, audits, checks and quality monitoring systems. We looked around the home.

Updated 1 January 2019

Magnolia House Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people, some of whom may have a physical disability or sensory impairment. The house is situated over two floors. There are stairlifts to bedrooms on the first floor. At the time of this inspection there were 17 people living there.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good.

People told us they felt safe. Staff rotas showed sufficient staff were employed. Care had been taken when recruiting new staff. Checks and references had been taken up to ensure new staff were entirely suitable for the post. Risks to people’s health were assessed and understood. The home sought treatment and advice from specialist health and social care professionals where needed to ensure people received safe care that met their needs.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. The home used an electronic medicine administration system which reduced the risk of errors and omissions. Medicines were only administered by staff who have received training and had been checked as competent to do so.

The home was clean and safe. All areas were regularly cleaned and appeared fresh and comfortable. Care was taken to ensure laundry was returned to people promptly and to the correct owner. Equipment was provided to assist people to move around the home safely.

People received a service that met their needs effectively. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and a care plan drawn up and agreed with them. Risks to people’s health and safety were identified and staff knew the care people needed to reduce the risks. The home used a computerised care planning system which enabled the senior staff to monitor people’s care and ensure essential tasks were carried out in accordance with the care plans.

Staff training was given a high priority. New staff received a thorough induction at the start of their employment. Staff received regular ongoing training on a range of topics relevant to the needs of people living there, and were supported to gain relevant qualifications.

The staff team had a good understanding of their legal requirement to uphold people’s rights. People were offered choices and supported to make decisions about their lives.

People’s nutritional needs were well met. People were offered a choice of meals. Mealtimes were a pleasant social occasion. Menus were displayed on the notice board and discussed regularly with people.

People told us the staff were caring. We saw staff interacting with people in a warm, friendly and caring manner. Staff knew people well and understood their preferences and daily routines. Comments from people included “(The staff) are absolutely spiffing. Smashing. The staff are wonderful. If you want anything they will try and get it for you, go out of their way to help you” and “There is nothing wrong with the home, believe me, staff very good, can’t do enough for you”.

People’s social needs were understood and met. Three activity organisers were employed. They understood the things people were interested in and provided a range of activities to suit each person. These included visiting entertainers, games, quizzes, arts and crafts. They also spent time sitting and talking to people.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident any concerns would be listened to and addressed. Their views on the home were sought in various ways such as questionnaires and resident’s meetings. People told us the home was well led and praised the registered manager and staff. There were checks and audits in place to ensure the home ran smoothly. There was a clear management structure in place and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

Further information is in the detailed findings below