Marlcroft

Updated 19 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 26 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service three hours notice of the inspection.

Updated 19 February 2022

This announced inspection of Marlcroft took place on 24 September 2018. We made phone calls to family members of people living at the service on 25 September 2018.

We last inspected Marlcroft in March 2016. The service was rated Good. We found during this inspection that the service remained Good.

Marlcroft is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Marlcroft is a small care home for younger adults. At the time of our inspection there were four people who lived at the home and one person who was accessing the home during the weekends for respite care. The home is registered to provide care to five people.

Risks were well assessed and information was updated as and when required. We were able to view these procedures and how they worked. Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt anyone was at risk of harm or abuse, which included ‘whistleblowing’ to external organisations. People were supported to manage their medication by staff who were trained to do so. The registered manager had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff who worked at the service were recruited safely. Rotas showed there was enough staff to support people.

There was a supervision schedule in place, and all staff had received up to date supervisions and most had undergone an annual appraisal. Any that were due had been booked in to take place. All newly appointed staff were enrolled on the Care Certificate. Records showed that all staff training was in date.

We saw that where people could consent to decisions regarding their care and support this had been well documented, and where people lacked capacity, the appropriate best interest processes had been followed. The service was working in accordance with the Mental Capacity and DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty) and associated principles.

Staff were able to give us examples of how they preserved dignity and privacy when providing care. Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the staff, the registered manager and the service in general. Relatives told us they liked the staff who supported their family member.

The complaints policy contained contact details for the local authorities and commissioning groups. There had been no documented complaints at the service since the last inspection.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they knew the people they supported well, and enjoyed the relationships they had built with people. Care plans contained information about people’s likes, dislikes, preferences, backgrounds and personalities.

Action plans were drawn up when areas of improvement were identified. Staff meetings and resident meetings took place. Quality assurance systems were effective and measured service provision. Regular audits were taking place for different aspects of service delivery.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.