CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merrymeet Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreaks.
- 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 26 January 2021. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found the premises clean and well maintained. Staff used personal protective equipment appropriately, COVID-19 testing was being carried out where possible, and infection control arrangements were in place.
Visits were restricted in line with local guidance. Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends by telephone, and supported one person to attend a regular meeting online.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care.
Clean premises
The home was clean and well maintained. Staff used cleaning schedules to make sure areas were cleaned regularly.
“The premises were clean and well-maintained. Staff followed cleaning schedules to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff used personal protective equipment appropriately, and COVID-19 testing was being carried out where possible.
“Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with good practice guidance, where possible.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Although visits were restricted, staff supported people to stay in contact with relatives and friends by telephone.
“During this time staff were supporting people to stay in contact with their relatives and friends via the telephone calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home’s current approach to infection prevention and control?
- 02How are relatives currently supported to visit or keep in contact with people living here?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 04When was the home last fully assessed for care that is effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
- 05How are the cleaning schedules checked and any problems followed up?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the home was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, October 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 23 September 2019. One inspector spoke with eight people, four staff members and two relatives. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that staff understood safeguarding, risks and medicines. There were enough staff, the home was clean, and care was based on people's needs, choices and preferences.
People described staff as kind, respectful and helpful. The home supported independence, access to healthcare, activities, family relationships and community life. Its systems for checking quality and managing the service were effective.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating published on 24 January 2017.
Good risk management
The home assessed risks carefully and supported people to take positive risks in their daily lives.
“The risk assessments had been thoroughly completed and reflected good practice in relation to positive risk taking.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, histories and goals. People could make choices about their daily routines.
“People continued to receive personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind, sensitive and respectful. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and support needs.
“The staff know me well and what I like and don't like. I get on with them, they listen to me and respect me.” from the report
Effective management
The manager and staff had systems for monitoring quality and discussing improvements. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback.
“Effective governance systems ensured the registered manager had clear oversight of the service.” from the report
End of life training
minorThe home did not routinely provide end of life care, and staff had not received end of life training at the time of the inspection. The report says staff could access training if it became necessary.
“The registered manager told us staff did not receive end of life training, however they did have access to training should the need arise.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative if they needed end of life care?
- 02What end of life training can staff access, and how quickly would it be arranged if needed?
- 03How would you update my relative's care plan when their needs or preferences changed?
- 04How do you involve residents and relatives in decisions about care and activities?
- 05How do you adjust staffing when residents' needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the report says the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
Every inspection of Merrymeet Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Merrymeet Residential Care Home →
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Merrymeet Residential Care Home →
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 March 2016.
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 Salford
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 £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the 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.