What the CQC found at Merrington Grange

People were supported by staff who showed kindness and understood their individual needs. Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and people.

“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring to them.” from the report

Care plans focused on people's strengths, wishes and goals. Staff helped people take part in activities and access the local community.

“People were supported to reach their goals and support was focused on their strengths.” from the report

People were encouraged to make decisions, prepare food, make drinks and take part in everyday tasks. Staff used the least restrictive approach possible.

“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report

Staff used communication methods that suited each person, including pictures and Makaton. Information was also available in easy read formats.

“People had communication profiles that detailed their individual care needs.” from the report

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Records, protocols and checks were in place, including for controlled drugs and medicines taken away from the home.

“People's medicines were stored safely in locked medicine cabinets.” from the report

Rotas showed frequent occasions when staffing was below people's assessed one-to-one support needs. The home also relied heavily on agency staff, which could affect consistency.

“Working one down happens regularly, multiple times per week.” from the report

Audits did not always check or record whether daily records, health monitoring and cleaning had been completed. One person's records showed that continence pads had not been changed as often as their care plan required.

“Governance systems were not always effective in checking the quality of the service.” from the report

Some paint was chipped and carpets were soiled. Maintenance actions had been outstanding for some time, and cleaning records did not always show that scheduled cleaning had been completed.

“Some areas of the home had chipped paint and soiled carpets which may have increased the risk of spread of infection.” from the report

Fire checks repeatedly recorded that compliance was not satisfactory, but did not always explain why. The fire safety log had not been audited for accuracy or required actions.

“The checks failed to always document why fire safety compliance was unsatisfactory.” from the report