CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mellish House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found fire safety risks, medicines were not always given as prescribed, and personal belongings were not treated with enough dignity after a death. They also found that some safety shortfalls had not been identified by the home's audits.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was managed openly and relatives said managers were approachable and listened to them. However, the audit systems had not identified some of the safety shortfalls found by inspectors.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always safe and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 and 18 August 2022. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff records and safety records.
The home had enough staff and recruitment checks were completed. Infection control arrangements were satisfactory, and relatives described caring staff, good communication and supportive management.
Inspectors found safety problems involving fire risks, medicines, personal belongings after a person's death and access to personal care equipment. The manager took immediate action on the issues found and agreed to improve monitoring systems.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement and Well-led was rated Good. The other key questions were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs promptly. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“Sufficient staff were observed deployed on the day of inspection to ensure people's needs were met in a timely manner.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including the safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Positive relationships
Relatives spoke positively about the caring culture, communication and support provided to their loved ones.
“Relatives spoke positively about the caring culture of the service and felt that their loved ones were safe and well supported.” from the report
Open management
The management team responded openly to the inspection findings and took action to address the problems identified.
“Throughout our inspection the management team were open, transparent and proactive in discussions and in their response to our findings.” from the report
Fire safety risks
seriousCardboard boxes, walking frames, furniture and laundry were stored under stairways and on stair wells. This created a risk to people's safety if there was a fire, although the items were removed immediately.
“We identified a risk to people's safety in the event of a fire where we found cardboard boxes, walking frames, furniture and laundry being stored under stairways and on stair wells.” from the report
Medicines not always given correctly
seriousSome prescribed creams had not been given, and pain relief patches were not administered in line with the home's policy. The manager addressed this promptly.
“However, we found not all prescribed creams had been administered and transdermal pain relief patches not administered in line with the provider's medicines administration policy, this was promptly addressed by the registered manager.” from the report
Dignity after death
needs fixingA person's clothing, photos and other belongings were left piled on a wheelchair and on the floor of a bathroom being used for storage. Inspectors said this did not show respect for the person's belongings or dignity.
“This did not demonstrate respect for people's personal items and dignity of care for the deceased.” from the report
Audits missed problems
needs fixingThe home's checks did not identify the fire safety, medicines, belongings and personal care equipment problems found during the inspection. The manager said monitoring systems would be improved.
“The shortfalls we identified in relation to fire safety, the dignified care of people's belongings following death, management of medicines and people's access to personal care equipment had not been identified in the current system of audits.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to ensure stairways and stair wells are kept clear?
- 02How do you make sure every prescribed cream and pain relief patch is given at the right time and recorded correctly?
- 03What arrangements are in place to store and return people's belongings respectfully after their death?
- 04How do you check that people can access the personal care equipment they need?
- 05What changes have been made to the audit system since inspectors found that these problems had not been identified?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings carried over from the previous inspection and were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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, December 2017
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found safe, kind care with especially strong personalised support and leadership.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 and 20 October 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found robust safeguarding arrangements, safe medicines systems, suitable staff training and recruitment checks. People’s choices, privacy, dignity, food and healthcare needs were also supported.
Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. Inspectors found detailed, personalised care plans, a wide range of activities, strong community links and quick responses to concerns. People and relatives were actively involved in decisions and improvements.
The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection to Outstanding. This means the CQC found the home performing exceptionally well overall at the time of this inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people’s wishes, preferences, life histories and changing needs. People and those important to them were involved in reviews.
“Care plans we viewed were very person centred and placed the person at the heart of their care.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could choose from a wide range of activities, including one-to-one support, hobbies, outings and events involving local groups.
“People participated in an excellent range of activities which kept them entertained and enabled them to follow their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found a visible and approachable management team, with people, relatives, staff and professionals able to offer ideas and raise concerns.
“We saw numerous examples of people being asked for their views, feedback and opinions and prompt action being taken as a result.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used detailed audits covering care, medicines, training, infection control, accidents and staff interactions. Actions were followed up when needed.
“There was a comprehensive and vast range of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements where needed.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, administered by trained staff and recorded accurately. Inspectors found no unexplained gaps in medicines administration records.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were accurate and there were no unexplained gaps in the records.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative’s care plan before they moved in?
- 02What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative’s hobbies and interests?
- 03How would you support my relative if they had dementia or complex behaviours?
- 04How are medicines checked, recorded and audited now?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and complaints?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2017 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 Mellish House Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Mellish House Residential Home →
- December 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
Read what inspectors found at Mellish House Residential Home →
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.