CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merrie Loots Farm Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with risk assessments, trained staff, safe medicines practice and enough staff. Some equipment and areas were in poor condition and needed repair or refurbishment.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare appointments and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found kind and friendly relationships. Staff promoted people's privacy, dignity, independence and existing relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's individual needs. People were supported with activities, religious and cultural choices, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular audits and feedback systems. However, records showed that not all required notifications had been sent to the CQC before the inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Merrie Loots Farm Residential Home is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some equipment and building repairs still needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 November 2018. It was a comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, training records, staffing rotas, audits and meeting minutes.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care and good support with food, health appointments, activities and end of life wishes.
Inspectors found some equipment and parts of the building were in poor condition and could be difficult to clean. A refurbishment programme was under way. They also found that not all required notifications had been sent to the CQC, although the provider recognised this and sent the notifications after the inspection.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in April 2016. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, understanding and caring. Inspectors saw staff communicate sensitively and protect people's dignity.
“Staff treated people as individuals.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely and on time.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about individual needs. People were supported to make choices and take part in meaningful activities.
“People's support plans broke down each aspect of the care and support the person needed.” from the report
Good links with health services
People were helped to attend health appointments and staff worked with healthcare professionals to respond to changes in people's health.
“The service worked in partnership with other agencies, particularly the local healthcare professionals, to provide joined-up care to people.” from the report
Support at the end of life
People's end of life preferences were recorded and families were involved in supporting their wishes. Some staff had hospice training.
“People's preferences and choices for their end of life care were recorded in their care plan.” from the report
Some equipment and areas needed repair
needs fixingSome equipment and parts of the building were rusty, chipped or cracked. This made them difficult to clean, although a refurbishment programme was under way.
“However, some equipment and areas of the service were in poor condition making them difficult to clean.” from the report
Some required notifications were missed
minorRecords showed that not all required notifications had been sent to the CQC. The provider recognised this and sent the notifications after the inspection.
“Records we held about the service, and looked at during our inspection, showed that the provider had not sent all required notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).” from the report
- 01Which of the rusted equipment, chipped skirting boards and cracked flooring mentioned in the report have now been repaired or replaced?
- 02How do you now check that all required notifications are sent to the CQC on time?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific risks, such as falls, choking, moving or poor skin integrity?
- 04What activities and community links would be available for my relative, including support for religious or cultural preferences?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and recording end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service, including accommodation and care, with all five question ratings assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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 Merrie Loots Farm Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Merrie Loots Farm Residential Home →
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.