CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mallard House Neurological Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, testing, PPE, visiting arrangements and the management of COVID-19 risks. The provider said it had measures to reduce the risks linked to COVID-19 staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Mallard House Neurological Care Centre: inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the service.
Inspectors were assured that the home used testing, personal protective equipment, isolation and zoning to help prevent infection. They also found that staff and visiting professionals were checked for vaccination status, where required.
The home had up-to-date COVID-19 policies and carried out checks to keep the service clean and tidy. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
The home had a booking system, rapid testing, hand-washing facilities and PPE stations for visitors and professionals.
“Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including professionals and others.” from the report
Infection control planning
The home used isolation, cohorting and zoning, and kept its COVID-19 policies and risk assessments up to date.
“Policies, procedures, risk assessments and guidance relating to COVID-19 were up to date, which supported staff to keep them and others safe.” from the report
Clean environment
Managers carried out regular checks and audits to help keep the home clean and tidy.
“Management conducted regular checks and audits to ensure the service was kept clean and tidy.” from the report
COVID-19 precautions
The home had testing for residents and staff, accessible PPE, and training in infection prevention and using PPE safely.
“A programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for all staff and residents.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
- 02Are visitors still required to book, test or provide evidence of vaccination?
- 03How do you currently manage isolation, cohorting and zoning when someone may have an infection?
- 04How often are infection control checks and audits carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 05What ratings or inspection findings cover effective, caring, responsive and well-led care, as these were not assessed in this visit?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major problems identified.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 20 August 2019. One inspector and a specialist nurse advisor visited the home. They reviewed records and information from other agencies, and spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and managers.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received personalised care. Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff had suitable training and support. People had access to healthcare, therapy, activities and community outings. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect, and involved people and families in care decisions.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in December 2017. The report says the home will continue to be monitored and could be inspected sooner if concerns are received.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's choices, needs and goals. Families were encouraged to take part in care planning.
“Care was personalised to each individual, and the provider had a focus on person centred care.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Inspectors found that medicines were stored securely, administered safely and recorded properly. Staff had training and competency checks.
“The provider had good systems in place to record when people received their medicine and stored them securely.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People had access to an in-house occupational therapist, physiotherapist and speech and language therapist, as well as external professionals.
“The provider had employed a therapy team consisting of an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and speech and language therapist” from the report
Activities and community access
People could take part in activities and outings, including trips into the community. Activities were adapted to people's interests.
“A range of activities and outings were available for people to take part in including trips to local farms, lakes, and museums.” from the report
Support for families
A dedicated role supported families, including during end of life care and after someone had died.
“A wide range of support was offered to family members when a person had died.” from the report
Active management oversight
Managers used audits and meetings to review the service. Inspectors saw evidence that problems were investigated and improvements made.
“Comprehensive audits were undertaken by management, and the systems in place to monitor the standards and quality of the service were being managed effectively.” from the report
Call bell response records
minorThe home did not keep a record of the exact times call bells were answered. Management said responses were monitored and tested regularly.
“There was no log of the exact timings of call bell responses, but this was monitored and tested regularly by management staff.” from the report
- 01How do you monitor call bell response times, given that exact response times were not recorded at the inspection?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's particular neurological, nursing and healthcare needs?
- 03How often will my relative's risk assessments and care plans be reviewed, and how will the family be involved?
- 04What therapy, activities and community outings would be available for my relative, and how would these be adapted to their interests and abilities?
- 05What support would be offered to our family if my relative needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Mallard House Neurological Care Centre
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Mallard House Neurological Care Centre →
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Mallard House Neurological Care Centre →
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 February 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Milton Keynes
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.