CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mercury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- This targeted inspection looked only at the parts of safety linked to infection control. Inspectors were assured about most arrangements, although mask use was not initially satisfactory and was followed up.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection controls after an initial concern about mask use.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 18 November 2020. It was prompted by concerns about infection control during Covid-19.
Inspectors spoke with the manager, two staff members and a health and social care professional. They checked infection prevention arrangements, including visitors, testing, social distancing, cleaning and protective equipment.
Inspectors were assured that the home had systems to prevent infection. They were not initially assured that masks were being used safely, but after further checks they were assured that staff were following current guidance and that mask use had improved.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not review the whole service or change the previous overall rating of Good, published in May 2019.
Infection-control systems
Inspectors were assured that systems were in place to prevent infections, including arrangements for visitors, testing, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that systems were in place to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Mask use improved
After the inspection visit, staff were able to follow up-to-date guidance and people living in the home were accepting staff wearing masks.
“At this point, they told us people living in the home were now accepting staff wearing masks and staff were able to follow the up to date guidance.” from the report
Up-to-date policy
Inspectors were assured that the infection prevention and control policy was current.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Masks were not initially used safely
needs fixingDuring the visit, inspectors found that face masks were not always used appropriately. The home explained this was linked to people's individual needs, and later checks gave inspectors assurance that current guidance was being followed.
“We were not assured at the site visit that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Manager registration was not complete
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The new manager was applying to register.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01How are staff currently using face masks, and how do you adapt this for people's individual needs?
- 02What checks do you carry out to make sure staff follow the latest infection-control guidance?
- 03Has the manager's application to register with the CQC been completed?
- 04What infection-control arrangements are in place for visitors and staff testing?
- 05What has changed since the last full inspection, which was rated Good in May 2019?
This was a targeted inspection of specific infection-control concerns within Safe; it did not assess the whole service or change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 2020 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, May 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection. One inspector visited on 27 March and 2 April 2019. They observed people and staff, spoke with staff and management, checked one person’s care records and reviewed medicine, recruitment, audit and other records. They could not speak with family members.
The report says people were safe, received medicines as prescribed and had their needs met by suitable numbers of staff. People were involved in meal planning, supported to access the community and treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans covered people’s preferences, history and support needs.
The service had previously been rated Requires Improvement. The provider had then breached rules about medicines, recruitment, complaints and quality checks. At this inspection, the provider had made improvements, and inspectors found no current concerns or breaches. All five areas were rated Good.
Personalised support
Support plans covered people’s histories, preferences and needs. Staff adapted activities and plans when people became distressed or found places too busy.
“People received personalised care which was responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared happy, and staff supported their choices, relationships, privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to go to places such as cinemas, shops and other towns. Staff helped them use public transport and build their interests and life skills.
“People were supported to undertake activities and socialise with people outside of the home.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had improved medicine management, recruitment, complaints handling and quality monitoring. The previous breaches were no longer present at this inspection.
“At this inspection the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of these regulations.” from the report
People involved in decisions
People’s wishes were considered when decisions were made. House meetings gave people a way to express their views.
“People were involved in how the service was run because their needs and wishes were considered before decisions were made.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you learn and respond to my relative’s non-verbal communication, preferences and signs of distress?
- 02How would my relative be involved in choosing meals, activities and daily routines?
- 03How do you adjust staffing levels when the number of people living at or staying in the home changes?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given correctly and that records remain accurate?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas; inspectors observed people and staff, reviewed one person’s care records and could not speak with family members. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 May 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 Mercury House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 October 2016.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.