CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Merrywick Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks and appropriate risk management, but some instructions for medicines used when needed were still incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's needs were assessed and reviewed. People received support with nutrition, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's personalities, communication methods, choices and support needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people's preferences were reviewed. People were supported to maintain relationships, take part in community activities and receive information in ways they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The manager was described as approachable and listened to people, relatives and staff, although new checks to monitor quality were still being implemented.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines protocols and quality checks still being completed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, training, recruitment checks, complaints and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable care plans and good support with medicines, health needs, communication and everyday choices.
People were supported to be independent and involved in their local community. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, treated them with respect and helped them make decisions about their care.
There were a few areas still being completed. Some instructions for medicines used when needed were incomplete, and new checks on the quality of care were still being put into practice. The overall rating stayed Good.
Personalised support
Staff understood people's preferences and interests, which helped them provide individual care.
“People's needs and information on how best to meet their preferences were identified, met and reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that people were listened to, treated respectfully and supported with dignity.
“People were treated with kindness; they were actively listened to and their choices respected.” from the report
Independence and community life
People were supported to build skills, take positive risks and spend time in the local community.
“People were supported to be involved in the local community and build on their independence.” from the report
Safe medicines support
People generally received their medicines at the right time and arrangements were judged safe.
“Medicines arrangements were safe and managed appropriately; people received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Improved leadership
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. People, relatives and staff had confidence in the manager.
“At this inspection this key question has improved to good.” from the report
Incomplete medicines instructions
needs fixingSome protocols for medicines prescribed to be used when needed were not complete at the inspection. The manager said they would be completed straight away.
“Some protocols still needed completing and the registered manager told us these would be done straight away.” from the report
Quality checks still being introduced
minorThe manager had reviewed and updated checks for monitoring care, but the new checks were not yet fully established.
“The registered manager was in the process of implementing new regular checks to ensure people were safe and happy with the service they received.” from the report
Larger than current best practice guidance
minorThe home supported 33 people and was larger than current best practice guidance. Inspectors said the design of the buildings helped reduce any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Have all the incomplete protocols for medicines used when needed now been completed, and how are they checked?
- 02What regular quality and safety checks are now in place, and what did they find after the inspection?
- 03How will my relative be supported to make choices, take positive risks and build independence?
- 04How does the home make sure people in its different buildings and accommodation types receive consistent care?
- 05How will my relative's communication needs and preferences be recorded and shared with staff?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous overall rating of Good published on 26 June 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2020 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 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors said the home Requires Improvement in well-led because the manager was not registered for this home.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2017, with a further telephone check on 26 May. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, a visitor, the manager and the provider. They also looked at care records, medicines, recruitment, training, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, well-managed medicines, respectful care and support for people's independence. Care plans were reviewed regularly, and people could take part in activities and give feedback.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The manager was managing the organisation's sister service but was not yet registered to manage this home. The manager was introducing new care planning and quality systems, and was carrying out audits. Inspectors also found a small number of inconsistencies in food and fluid records.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw that recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Medicine records and checks showed that medicines were stored, given, recorded and disposed of properly, including controlled medicines.
“We saw that medicines were stored safely, obtained in a timely way so that the person did not run out of them, administered on time, recorded correctly and disposed of appropriately” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors saw positive interactions between people and staff.
“Staff were kind, caring and considerate. They respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included information about people's lives, preferences and support needs. People were supported with activities, trips and contact with the community.
“This included a brief life history as well as 'What people admire about me', 'What makes me happy' and 'How best to support me'.” from the report
Manager not registered for this home
needs fixingThe manager was registered for the sister service but had not yet registered to manage this home. This was the reason the well-led rating Requires Improvement.
“The manager was the registered manager for the organisation's 'sister' service and but was not yet registered as the manager for Merrywick Hall.” from the report
Some care records were inconsistent
needs fixingInspectors found a small number of inconsistencies in food and fluid records. The manager agreed to address this with staff.
“We discussed with the manager that there were a small number of anomalies in care records, such as inconsistencies in food and fluid intake records, and they agreed to address this with staff.” from the report
Emergency planning was still being developed
minorThe emergency plan covered fire but the registered manager had identified that other emergency situations needed adding. Evacuation information also still needed transferring to personal emergency evacuation plans.
“There was an emergency plan that provided advice for staff on how to deal with fire and the registered manager had identified that other emergency situations needed to be included in the plan.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now registered with CQC to manage this home, and if not, what is the expected timescale?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure food and fluid records are complete and consistent?
- 03How are people's care and activities being managed while the refurbishment continues, including the temporary dining arrangements?
- 04Has the emergency plan been updated to cover situations other than fire?
- 05Have all evacuation plans been transferred into personal emergency evacuation plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with a further telephone check on 26 May 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 2017 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 Merrywick Hall
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 April 2014.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.