The Magnolia Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We identified one breach of the legal regulations. We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the well-led key question and found areas of concern. The scores of these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Though the assessment of these areas indicates area of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains requires improvement. Systems and processes to assess the quality and safety of the care were in place and had identified areas for improvements which had been actioned. However, monitoring and auditing of some aspects of the service had failed to identify the concerns we raised with the provider, which included care, treatment and risk management, environmental concerns regarding cleanliness.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff had knowledge of the providers values and described how they adhered to these in their day to day work. Staff described morale and culture at the service to be good. One staff member said, “We’re a happy and good team. We’ve really bonded and really get on.”

Values of the provider were included within the staff guidance booklet, which was given to staff during their induction. The provider recognised the importance of staff in shaping the culture of the service. In support of this initiatives were in place to celebrate staff success. These included an employee of the month award and the awarding of badges for those staff with long term service, all achievements were published within the provider’s monthly newsletter.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff described the management team as approachable and responsive. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns. Staff were aware of external organisations they could raise concerns with, in the event the provider and management team were not responsive to their concerns.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy, which was shared with staff. Staff had the opportunity to raise concerns and contribute toward service deliver during team meetings and individual supervision meetings with the management team. The provider had sought feedback from staff through surveys, the most recent survey indicated staff were satisfied with their place of work.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Staff said they preferred to use pen and paper when recording medicine administration and demonstrated instances where the electronic medicine system prevented oversight and monitoring with some aspects of people’s treatment. For example, diabetes management and the application of transdermal patches (a patch that attaches to your skin and contains medication). The provider advised audits were undertaken in a range of areas and where shortfalls were identified a service improvement plan was put into place, monitored by the quality assurance team.

Quality assurance systems were not always effective or consistent in their findings. For example, medicines audits had not identified blood glucose monitoring tests were being missed. Infection prevention and control (IPC) audits had not identified the visible dirt of mobility equipment and stained mattress covers, whilst a daily management walk through audit had identified a malodour and cleanliness concerns in an identified area. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability, which included daily management walk through audits, weekly operating reports, monthly management reports and quality reports. Audits and reports focused on range of areas including health and safety, safeguarding, medication management, complaints and concerns, staff supervision and recruitment records. In addition analysis of data was undertaken to monitor specific areas at service level of people’s health care and treatment. For example, falls, skin integrity and weight management. Where incidents had occurred, such as falls or other incidents reports included details of the incident, the outcome and any lessons learnt. People’s views about the quality of care were sought through meetings and questionnaires.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.