CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Marillac Neurological Care Centre
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always managed safely. One person missed four doses after staff failed to identify that a medicine had expired, although risks, equipment and infection control were otherwise generally managed well.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received relevant induction, training and supervision. Food, hydration, therapy and healthcare support were provided in line with people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care decisions and staff encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people had access to activities, gardens and communication aids. Some people and relatives wanted more meaningful one-to-one contact, and some relatives disliked limits on visiting times.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive culture and most quality monitoring was effective. However, audits had not identified the medicines problems, and therapy records were sometimes hard to read because of poor handwriting.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines were not always managed safely and leadership needed to improve.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 22 September and 3 October 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home supported 51 people with complex neurological needs. Inspectors found enough staff overall, detailed risk assessments, clean premises, good training, kind staff and personalised care. People had access to health professionals, activities, gardens and communication support.
The main safety problem was medicines management. One person missed four doses because an expired medicine had not been identified in time. Some medicine risk information and records were also not easy to access or complete.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. This was the first inspection of the newly registered service.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being gentle and attentive. People said their privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
“We saw staff being gentle, understanding and sensitive.” from the report
Good specialist support
Staff had training for complex neurological care, including tracheostomy care, PEG feeding, pressure ulcer and continence care. People also had access to therapy and healthcare professionals.
“Specialist training in complex nursing tasks such as tracheostomy care, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, pressure ulcer and continence care was also provided.” from the report
Detailed personalised care
Care plans described people's medical, physical, therapeutic, emotional and social needs. Staff knew these plans and supported people to make choices and stay independent.
“People's care plans were detailed, regularly reviewed and updated.” from the report
Clean and accessible setting
The building was clean, spacious and adapted to people's needs. People could use accessible communal areas, gardens and woodland.
“All areas were clean, spacious, bright and welcoming.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The provider investigated incidents and concerns, recorded lessons and made changes. Inspectors saw examples of action being taken to improve safety and maintenance.
“The provider had taken on board and incorporated into their lessons learnt advice from the local authority and from CQC's focussed inspection to improve safeguarding and quality assurance processes.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousStock was not always checked and rotated, and one person missed four doses because an expired medicine was not identified. Medicine risk assessments and pain-monitoring records were also not always easy to find or complete.
“One person missed four doses of their prescribed medicine because staff had not checked the medicine had passed its expiry date and a supply could not be sourced in time.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits of medicines had not identified the issues found by inspectors. Therapy records were sometimes illegible, and regular therapy audits were not being completed.
“Quality audits of the management and administration of medicines were completed but had not identified the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
Reliance on agency nurses
needs fixingThe home had enough qualified staff on shift, but it relied on agency nursing staff because permanent recruitment was difficult. Some people, relatives and staff were concerned that agency workers did not always know people well.
“There was, however, a reliance on agency nursing staff as the director told us they were having difficulty recruiting to permanent posts.” from the report
Some records were difficult to read
minorSome therapy notes were hard to read. This could make it difficult to understand the treatment given and the outcomes achieved.
“Some of the therapeutic notes were hard to read due to handwriting being illegible.” from the report
Some people wanted more individual contact
minorActivities were available, but some people and relatives said there were not enough meaningful conversations or suitable activities for people with more complex needs.
“A family member told us, "[Relative] would benefit from more 1:1 attention, as their condition puts them at a disadvantage of getting contact with others.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to check medicine expiry dates, rotate stock and prevent missed doses?
- 02How are medicine risk assessments and pain-monitoring records kept complete and easy for staff to access?
- 03How many permanent nurses are currently in post, and how do agency nurses learn each person's needs before providing care?
- 04Have the therapy records moved to an electronic system, and how do managers now check that records are clear and complete?
- 05How do you provide meaningful one-to-one time and suitable activities for people who cannot join the main activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; the service was newly registered and this was its first inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 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.
Every inspection of Marillac Neurological Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Marillac Neurological Care Centre →
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.