We carried out a review of the data available to us about Magnolia House Care Home 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 Magnolia House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
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
This inspection took place on 26 & 27 April 2016 and was unannounced. There were 19 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.
We last inspected this service on the 11 November 2013 and we found the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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.
People said they felt safe. They were protected against the risk of abuse. Staff had been trained to recognise what to look for. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.
Staff were recruited using robust procedures intended to protect people from unsuitable staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs. People said staff were available throughout the day and night, and responded quickly to their requests for support.
Assessments identified people's specific needs or risks, and showed how risks could be reduced. There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and the registered manager ensured action was taken where necessary to reduce future risks. Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and in a dignified manner.
Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs and had undertaken a range of training suitable to their role. Staff received support and supervision from the registered manager to discuss work issues, training needs and performance.
People were offered a diet that met their needs and wishes. Menus offered variety and choice. People said they liked the food. People had access to a variety of health professionals for specialist advice and support when appropriate.
People were protected by good practice in relation to decision making. The registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People said the staff were respectful, friendly and kind. Staff supported people to take part activities and supported them to retain their independence. We observed staff spending time engaging people in conversations, and speaking to them in a friendly, warm and politely way.
People knew how to raise concerns and were confident the registered manager would deal with them appropriately and resolved them where possible.
There were systems in place to obtain people's views about the service. The provider and registered manager regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service to ensure standards were met and maintained.
The home was pleasantly presented. During our visit we observed that one bedroom was being redecorated and refurbished.
Staff were knowledgeable about the medication that people were prescribed and listened to people's concerns about what they were being given.
People told us that they were content with the care and support they received, saying "The food is good, plenty of it....they look after me well". Another person said "I like how pleasant everyone is." Staff told us that they enjoyed working at Magnolia House. Staff, people living at the home and their relatives, expressed confidence in the manager's ability sort out any problems.
People who lived at the home had positive views of the care they received and what it was like to live at Magnolia House. Comments we were told included 'the staff are lovely', 'it's a very nice place here', 'they look after me' and 'I wouldn't want to live anywhere else'.
People who used the service felt safe and secure at Magnolia House. People were supported by staff who understood what their role was in safeguarding them from abuse.
People were assisted by staff who were properly supervised in their work and suitably trained to understand their needs. The system of supervision for staff enabled them to improve the quality of life for people who used the service.
There was a quality assurance system in place that identified areas for improvement as well as what was working effectively at Magnolia House. This system was in place to improve the overall quality of service people received.
We spoke to 6 people about what it was like to live at Magnolia House and spent lunch time talking to three people in depth. We spent time observing care delivery in the communal areas and looked at all areas of the home. We spoke to the provider, the Director of Care, the manager and two staff, a relative and looked at records. People told us that 'it doesn't just seem nice, it's lovely' and 'everyone is so lovely here'. All the people we spoke to living at the home were very positive about their experience there.
We saw that the home focussed on people's choice about how they wanted to live their lives. Staff were aware of people's likes and preferences and there was good communication between the staff and people living there. This included regular resident's meetings, choices of relevant activities and a complaints book showing that concerns were acted upon and recorded in a timely way no matter how small.
People felt that they were well cared for and that there was a lot of laughter. People were encouraged to mix and one person said that this was good as it was not done 'falsely' and staff included people living at the home in any conversations. We heard how people had enjoyed lunches out at the pub next door.
Staff are well trained and knowledgeable about people's needs and how to meet them. We saw that care records were detailed and that staff were caring for people in a person centred way forming real relationships.