CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Merlewood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks, including visitor controls, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Merlewood was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 5 November 2020. It was carried out because of coronavirus outbreaks and looked at infection prevention and control practices.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment and infection outbreaks safely. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
Staff had infection control and hand-washing training. The home used a glow box to check hand-washing, and PPE stations were placed outside bedrooms. Regular letters helped keep people informed while they were isolated.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give ratings for the other areas of care.
Hand-washing checks
Staff received infection control and hand-hygiene training. A glow box showed staff where gel had not been washed off properly.
“A 'glow box' was installed to ensure correct hand hygiene practice was followed.” from the report
Keeping people informed
The registered manager sent regular letters explaining what was happening in the home while people were isolated.
“The registered manager wrote regular letters to people living in the home.” from the report
Infection control assurances
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, admissions, testing, PPE, hygiene and outbreak management.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE stations outside bedrooms being used and checked now?
- 02How often do staff receive infection control and hand-hygiene training?
- 03How does the home currently manage testing for residents and staff?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
- 05How are residents and families kept informed if people need to isolate?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only, so the service was inspected but not rated and other care areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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; inspectors found kind, safe care, but records and activities needed some improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, recruitment files, training information and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, staffing levels were enough and medicines were provided as prescribed.
Inspectors found detailed care plans and good links with health professionals. However, records did not always show the care that had been provided. Some people wanted more variety in activities, and complaint records did not clearly show the full progress of complaints.
Kind and respectful staff
People consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors also observed staff offering reassurance, protecting privacy and involving people in everyday choices.
“People told us they were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and that they felt involved in determining their own care and making their own decisions.” from the report
Staff available
People and relatives said there were enough staff. Staffing was based on people's needs and call bell response times were checked.
“Staffing levels were determined using a dependency tool and regular call bell audits were carried out to help ensure staff responded to requests for assistance from people in an appropriate timeframe.” from the report
Good food and nutrition support
People gave positive feedback about the food. Staff supported people to eat and drink, including people who needed modified meals or help at mealtimes.
“People were provided with nutrition and hydration in order for them to maintain a good level of health.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed accidents and incidents and acted on patterns, including increasing checks when falls were more common at particular times.
“The clinical lead ensured that regular reviews of accidents and incidents were completed to identify trends.” from the report
Positive management
People and staff said the new manager had made a positive difference. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to support improvements.
“Since the new manager had commenced in post, staff and people told us she had made a positive impact to the service.” from the report
Some activities lacked variety
minorMost people enjoyed the activities, especially trips out. Some people wanted more choice, and staff described the programme as repetitive.
“We don't have to look at the programme, it's the same old routine.” from the report
Complaint records needed tightening
needs fixingThe home responded to complaints, but the paperwork did not always show the actions taken or clearly track a complaint from start to finish.
“We reviewed the complaints file and found it was difficult to track a complaint through from receipt to resolution.” from the report
Some decision-making records were hard to find
minorSome Mental Capacity Act records were stored in different places during the change to the care system. The manager said they were working to bring records together.
“Some of the records in relation to the MCA were difficult to locate.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the electronic care records so they show all the care provided?
- 02What activities and outings are currently available, and how can residents ask for more variety?
- 03How are complaints now recorded from the first report through to the final action?
- 04How are Mental Capacity Act records stored and made easy to find?
- 05Is the manager now registered with the CQC?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC rating areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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 Merlewood
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.