CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merrydale Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed, including visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and admissions. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the impact of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Merrydale Residential Home: inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 1 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found that staff followed infection control guidance. PPE was used correctly, the home was visibly clean, and cleaning checks showed the arrangements were effective. People were supported to see relatives safely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rating for most of the five questions.
Infection control
Staff had current guidance, completed infection control training and used PPE correctly. The home was clean and equipment was in good order.
“Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct PPE and following best practice.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Cleaning schedules and checks were monitored. Inspectors found that these checks showed the cleaning arrangements were effective.
“Regular cleaning schedules and audits were monitored and demonstrated they were effective.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
People were supported to see relatives through safe visiting processes. They could use a heated visiting room or visit inside the home.
“People were supported to see their relatives.” from the report
Information for people
Current infection control information was available for staff and visitors, including easy-read information for people living in the home.
“The registered manager ensured the most up to date information was available for staff and visitors, with accessible easy read versions for people living in the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing COVID-19 or other infection risks for residents, staff and visitors?
- 02Are visitors still asked to complete tests, health checks or other checks before entering?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures, and have these affected residents' care or daily routines?
- 04Is the heated visiting room still available, and can relatives visit inside the home?
- 05How often are cleaning schedules and infection control audits checked, and what happens if a problem is found?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2022 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, and the four breaches found at the previous inspection had been addressed.
Inspectors visited on 16 May 2018 without warning. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, recruitment files, medicines records, safety records and records about how the home was run.
They found people were kept safe, medicines were managed properly and there were enough staff. Staff were trained and supported. People had enough food and drink, care plans were detailed and reviewed monthly, and activities were available every day.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People and relatives were involved in decisions, could have visitors without restrictions and could raise concerns. The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
At the April 2017 inspection, the service had four legal breaches and four areas rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors said all required improvements had been made by this inspection.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely. Records were complete, with no unexplained gaps, and staff understood people's needs.
“The medicines administration records were completed in full with no unexplained gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a friendly, homely atmosphere. Inspectors saw positive relationships and respect for people's privacy and choices.
“Observations of practice and communication demonstrated that staff were kind, caring and showed respect for people.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans covered identified needs and were reviewed each month. Staff were given protected time to update plans for the people they worked closely with.
“People had detailed care plans that were reviewed monthly by the deputy manager or registered manager.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose food, drink, personal care routines and whether to join activities. A range of activities was planned, including exercise, crafts and quizzes.
“There was a plan for activities available for the week.” from the report
Learning from the previous inspection
The service had acted on the problems identified in April 2017. Inspectors found the required improvements had been completed.
“At this inspection, we found the service had made all of the required improvements.” from the report
Limited suitability for people needing hoists
minorThe building was not suitable for people who were less mobile and relied on equipment such as hoists. Ask whether it would meet your relative's needs now and if those needs changed.
“The provider and registered manager told us the building would not support people who were less mobile and relied on the use of equipment such as hoists.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative if their mobility reduced or they began to need a hoist?
- 02How often would you review my relative's care plan, and how would they and the family be involved?
- 03How do you make sure medicines records remain complete, especially for medicines given only when needed?
- 04Which activities would suit my relative's interests and abilities, and how could they choose not to take part?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or our family raised a complaint or concern?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with the overall rating and each key-question rating assessed during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2018 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 Merrydale Residential Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2015.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 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.