CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merryfields
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks from pressure ulcers, falls and poor nutrition were assessed and managed. They were also assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
- 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good risk management and infection control, but this was not a full inspection.
This was a targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. Inspectors checked concerns about pressure ulcer risks and also looked at infection prevention and control. They did not examine the circumstances of the incident that prompted the inspection.
Inspectors found that risks linked to pressure ulcers, falls and nutrition were assessed and managed. Records showed people received safe care, including monitoring of weight, food intake, skin condition and falls.
The home was clean and hygienic. Staff used protective equipment correctly, testing was in place, and arrangements were made to reduce infection risks for people, staff and visitors.
The service was not given a new rating. Its previous overall rating was Good, published in April 2018. This targeted inspection did not assess all areas, so it did not change that rating.
Risk management
Care records showed that risks from pressure ulcers, falls and nutrition were assessed. Staff recorded monitoring and took action, including referrals to health professionals when needed.
“People's care records demonstrated risks associated with pressure ulcers developing and deteriorating, falls and nutrition were assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Infection control
The home had infection control policies, training and supplies. Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment appropriately and found arrangements to reduce infection risks.
“Staff were following good infection prevention and control practices which helped to minimise risks to people.” from the report
Testing and entry controls
Routine testing was in place for people and staff. Visitors had their temperature checked, used protective equipment, washed their hands and completed a questionnaire.
“There was a routine of testing both people using the service and staff, in line with government guidance.” from the report
Reducing isolation
The home had a separate area for visits to reduce cross-contamination. It also provided activities for people.
“In addition, to further reduce the risks of isolation, there was a programme of activities available to people to participate in.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are pressure ulcer risks assessed and reviewed now?
- 02How do you monitor people's weight, food intake, skin condition and falls?
- 03What action do you take when someone is found to be at increased risk?
- 04What infection testing and protective equipment arrangements are currently in place?
- 05How do you support visits and activities while reducing infection risks?
This was a targeted inspection of specific risks and infection control; it did not examine the incident that prompted the inspection or assess all areas, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2021 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 2018
Merryfields was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 March 2018. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment, training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, had enough staff, received medicines safely and lived in a clean home.
People received care based on their needs and preferences. Staff supported people with food, health appointments, activities, personal choices and end-of-life care. The home had systems to listen to concerns and improve the service.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 21 March 2016. This inspection found that the evidence still supported that rating.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely.
“Medicines continued to be administered safely. People told us that they were satisfied with how the staff supported them with their medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, encouraged their independence and protected their dignity and privacy.
“Staff spoke with people at their eye level and listened to what they said.” from the report
Activities and family links
People could take part in activities such as quizzes, bingo, exercise, outings and entertainment. The home also supported contact with family and friends.
“There continued to be a programme of activities that people could participate in if they chose to.” from the report
Quality checks
The management team used audits, incident reviews, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“The registered manager continued to undertake a programme of audits to assess the quality of the service and identify issues.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific needs, including any risks relating to falls, nutrition, choking or pressure ulcers?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are given safely and that records remain accurate?
- 03What activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and past routines?
- 04How would you support my relative to keep in touch with family, friends, community groups or religious activities?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care planning and decisions about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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 Merryfields
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.