CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merlin Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe equipment and medicines given as prescribed. Relatives gave mixed views about staffing levels, with some saying staff were sometimes under pressure.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had relevant training, supervision and support. Inspectors did identify that some mental capacity records were not specific enough about the decision being made.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and life histories, and were updated when needs changed. People had activities, could maintain relationships and were supported to raise complaints or concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider were described as open, supportive and approachable. Audits and action plans were being used to improve care, although the manager was new and still applying to become the registered manager.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Merlin Park was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with a few records and staff support issues to keep under review.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 October 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported 25 older people, including some living with dementia or other cognitive impairments. Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, safe medicine practices, clean surroundings, suitable equipment and good knowledge of people's risks and needs.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Their care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had activities, could raise concerns and were supported to make choices. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, equipment was maintained and medicines were administered safely.
“Medicines were administered safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Our observations of staff interactions with people showed that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and life histories. Staff responded to changing needs and involved families in planning care.
“People had person centred care plans that described their individual needs and what was important to them.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were offered meaningful activities and support to go out, maintain relationships and use community services.
“People were provided with the opportunity to participate in a range of activities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns. The home used audits, feedback and action plans to make improvements.
“The provider had a schedule and range of quality assurance processes in place, including multiple audits of the service.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments recorded the decision too broadly rather than identifying the specific decision. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Mental capacity assessments had been completed when required, but on some occasions the recording of the decision to be made was too wide ranging and not decision specific, in line with the legislation.” from the report
Staffing pressure
minorRelatives gave mixed views about staffing. Some said there were times when there were not enough staff or staff were under pressure, although inspectors saw enough staff during the visit.
“Relatives provided mixed views about staffing levels in the home.” from the report
Infrequent meetings
minorMeetings involving people and relatives had taken place but were not very frequent. Families may want to ask how often they can expect to be involved.
“Meetings between staff, people and their relatives had taken place, although these had not been very frequent.” from the report
Further dementia environment review
minorThe home had already made some dementia-friendly changes, but the manager planned a further audit against national guidance.
“The manager told us they would be undertaking an audit of the environment, to assess this against national guidance for environments for those living with dementia.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff when someone is absent or under pressure?
- 02What changes have you made to ensure mental capacity records identify each specific decision?
- 03How often are people and relatives invited to meetings about the home and their care?
- 04What was the outcome of the planned audit of the environment for people living with dementia?
- 05How are activities chosen and reviewed when people say they want more or different activities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings from 2017 remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Merlin Park was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with fluid records not always complete.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 March 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people, visitors, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines arrangements, clear risk assessments, good training and nutritious food. People were treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported with activities.
The main shortfall was that food and fluid records were not always fully completed. This meant the records did not always show whether people had received enough fluid for their needs. The manager said a more accurate monitoring method would be considered.
The home had also been rated Good at the November 2014 inspection. Inspectors found that it remained Good at this inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff who had been assessed as competent. Records reviewed had no gaps, and regular audits were carried out.
“There were no gaps in the recordings of medicines given on the medicines administration records (MAR).” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Recruitment checks were completed before staff started. Inspectors found consistent staffing levels and saw staff respond promptly and without rushing people.
“There were sufficient staff available to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy, offering help gently and supporting people to make choices.
“People's privacy and dignity was maintained and staff were caring and considerate as they supported people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, histories, health needs and risks. Staff knew people well and reviewed care records regularly.
“Care plans gave clear information for staff on how to meet the needs of people in a person centred and individualised way which ensured their safety and welfare.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could take part in games, quizzes, outings, celebrations and entertainment. Staff also encouraged people to remain independent.
“There was a wide range of activities promoted in the home and two activities coordinators supported this work.” from the report
Fluid records
needs fixingFood and fluid records were not always fully completed. They did not always show whether people had received enough fluid for their identified needs.
“Daily records of food and fluids were kept although these were not always fully completed and did not always identify people had received sufficient fluids in line with their identified needs.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check people's fluid intake where they have identified hydration needs?
- 02What progress has been made in developing staff skills to safely administer insulin?
- 03How does the keyworker system now work, and how does it keep each person's care plan up to date?
- 04How are people's activity preferences recorded, especially for people who choose to stay in their rooms?
- 05What actions were taken after the inspection to improve the accuracy of food and fluid monitoring?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Merlin Park
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 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.