Merrydale Residential Home

Updated 17 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 the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had 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 01 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours notice of the inspection.

Updated 17 February 2022

We inspected this service on the 16 May 2018 and it was unannounced. At our last inspection in April 2017, we found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2015. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led to at least good. At this inspection, we found the service had made all of the required improvements.

Merrydale is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Merrydale accommodates 15 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 had individual risk assessments with suitable safety measures in place to keep them safe. There were also comprehensive risk assessments for the environment which had been regularly reviewed.

Medicines were managed safely; we observed medicines administration and observed that staff practice was safe. The medicines administration records were completed in full with no unexplained gaps.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff understood their role in keeping people safe and had received training on safeguarding people from harm. The registered manager had carried out the required pre-employment checks before staff started work.

Staff were well trained and had opportunity for regular supervision. They told us they felt well supported and could approach the registered manager at any time. New members of staff had an induction period where they could learn about the job role. There was a clear staff structure and everyone was aware of their responsibilities.

People had sufficient food and drinks. Staff offered the required support to enable people to eat where appropriate. People were involved in planning the menus and always had choice of food and drink.

The premises were kept clean and well maintained. The staff followed effective infection prevention and control practices. The service was a small home that felt very homely.

People were supported by a staff team that knew their needs well. We observed kind and compassionate interactions that demonstrated mutual respect. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Care plans were comprehensive and regularly reviewed. There was a ‘co-worker’ system in place, which meant people were allocated a member of staff to work more closely with. ‘Co-workers’ reviewed care plans and wrote their own monthly reports on people’s needs.

People had been given the opportunity to record their end of life wishes. The service had supported people at the end of their lives with assistance from healthcare professionals.

Activities were varied and provided daily. People had the option to be involved but could also choose to spend time doing their own activity. Visitors were welcomed without restriction.

There were regular meetings for people, relatives and staff and minutes were kept. Surveys were completed so that feedback about the service could be sought. All feedback we saw was positive. People, relatives and healthcare professionals all stated they thought the service was caring, responsive and well-led.

There was a complaints policy in place and an easy read copy was available in rooms. People and their relatives were confident any concerns would be addressed by the service.