CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Maranatha Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Not all risks were assessed and recorded well enough. Inspectors also found gaps in staffing cover in communal areas, problems with some DBS checks and a concern about PRN medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- No rating or detailed findings were given for this question in this inspection report.
- Caring?
- Good
- No rating or detailed findings were given for this question in this inspection report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No rating or detailed findings were given for this question in this inspection report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality monitoring did not provide enough assurance, and there were no clear contingency arrangements when the registered manager was absent. Social activities and support for people's choices also needed improvement.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found people felt safe, but risk records, staffing cover and management oversight needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 and 16 May 2022. One inspector spoke with four people, two relatives and three staff. They reviewed care and staff records, medicines, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home was not always safe. Some risks were not assessed or recorded in enough detail. Communal lounges were not always staffed, some staff did not have the required enhanced DBS check, and one medicine prescribed for use when needed was given routinely instead.
The home was not always well-led. Quality checks did not give enough assurance, especially when the registered manager was absent. People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care, and staff said they felt supported. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Relatives said they had no safety concerns about their family members.
“I have no concerns and I feel [relative] is very safe.” from the report
Positive views of care
Relatives were happy with the care and said staff were welcoming. Staff also said they felt valued and supported.
“I am very happy with the care provided for [relative]. The staff are very good, and I am always made to feel welcome when I visit.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had appropriate arrangements for PPE, testing, visitors and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using Personal Protective Equipment effectively and safely.” from the report
Risk records were incomplete
seriousSome people's risks were not assessed or recorded in enough detail. This included a serious medical condition, night-time restlessness and generic assessments for falls, choking and absconding.
“Not all risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and recorded or documented in enough detail to mitigate the risks for people's safety.” from the report
People's choices and capacity records
needs fixingMental capacity records did not always explain the decision being assessed or why it was in the person's best interests. Assessments were not always reviewed as planned, and people were not routinely offered choices.
“People were not routinely supported to make choices or decisions.” from the report
Staffing cover
seriousCommunal lounge areas were left without staff for long periods while staff carried out other tasks. Inspectors also found that not all care staff had the required enhanced DBS check.
“Communal lounge areas were not always staffed for long periods of time while they assisted people to have their comfort needs met or to carry out other tasks.” from the report
PRN medicine practice
seriousOne medicine prescribed for use when needed was given twice daily, without records showing the person had been unsettled. The monthly medicine audit had not identified this.
“The MAR form showed this medication was routinely given twice daily in the morning and at night.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe provider had not shown that it had direct oversight of the home. There were no clear contingency plans for quality oversight when the registered manager was absent.
“No information was available to provide assurance the provider had direct oversight of the service as there was no evidence to determine quality monitoring checks of the service were being undertaken as part of their role and responsibilities.” from the report
- 01How have you updated and personalised risk assessments for falls, choking, absconding, night-time restlessness and serious medical conditions?
- 02How do you make sure PRN medicines are given only when needed and that the reason is recorded?
- 03Have all care staff now received the appropriate enhanced DBS checks?
- 04How will you ensure communal lounge areas are staffed and provide more social activities?
- 05What contingency arrangements are now in place for quality oversight when the registered manager is absent?
This was an unannounced focused inspection prompted by a reported incident, covering Safe and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also reviewed under Safe; no new ratings were given for the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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, November 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and well-led management, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 October 2021. One inspector spoke with people, a relative and staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, trained staff, safe medicine systems and infection control measures. People and relatives gave positive feedback about their care.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in November 2019. The report says the home had improved its premises and introduced stronger systems to monitor care and manage risks.
Improved safety
The home had improved parts of the building and had systems to assess risks such as falls, pressure sores and malnutrition.
“The provider had made improvements to the premises since our last inspections.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to support people with medicines. Records and systems for storing, giving and monitoring medicines were in good order.
“Medicine records we reviewed were in good order.” from the report
Positive staff culture
People, relatives and staff described a supportive culture. The manager sought feedback and staff discussed care and service improvements in meetings.
“There was a positive and inclusive culture aimed at achieving good outcomes for people.” from the report
Stronger oversight
Management systems had been developed since the previous inspection. Action plans recorded timescales and responsibility for improvements.
“The registered manager had developed systems at the service to increase their monitoring and oversight.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What refurbishment work is still ongoing, and when is it expected to be completed?
- 02How do you assess and review the individual risks of falls, pressure sores and malnutrition?
- 03How are medicine audits carried out, and how are any actions followed up?
- 04How do you support people living with dementia to take part in daily life and make choices?
- 05How will relatives receive updates and give feedback about the care provided?
This was a planned inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the report gives no new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 2021 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 Maranatha Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 2010.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.