CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mulberry House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found sufficient staffing, safe medicines practice, safeguarding procedures and risk assessments. They noted vacant posts, recruitment records that were not all available during the inspection, and some safety checks or environmental work still needed following up.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and understood how to support people with complex needs and decision-making. People had access to health professionals, although annual medical checks had been due and were being arranged.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity, respect and compassion. They used communication passports, objects and signs to understand people who communicated mainly without speech.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal and staff supported people with activities, trips, relationships and daily choices. Staff responded quickly to changes in people's health or mood, and complaint profiles were in place.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager had introduced monitoring and action plans, and staff said they felt supported. Audits covered care, medicines, staffing, training, cleanliness and safety, although some improvements were still being followed up.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Mulberry House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some checks and records needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 11 June 2018. It was the first inspection since the home registered in July 2017. One inspector reviewed records, observed people and staff, and spoke with staff, the manager, a friend of a resident and health and social care professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines practice, suitable training and good support from health professionals.
People mainly used non-verbal communication, so inspectors observed their interactions with staff. They found staff understood people's individual ways of communicating, treated them with dignity and supported activities, relationships, independence and community life.
There were some matters to improve. Six staff posts were vacant, some recruitment records were held elsewhere, some safety checks had been missed or were awaiting dates, and a few care or risk records needed updating. These issues did not change the Good ratings.
Personalised communication
Staff took time to understand people's non-verbal communication and used communication passports and Makaton to support choice and relationships.
“People had communication passports to enable staff to understand people in relation to their non-verbal communication.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond calmly and sensitively. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and personal routines.
“Staff treated people with dignity, respect and compassion.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the local community, based on their interests and needs.
“People were supported to take part in daily activities in both their home and the local area.” from the report
Health and medicines
Medicines were managed safely and staff worked with health and social care professionals to meet people's needs.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider used audits, reports and action plans to monitor care and identify improvements.
“There were systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Vacant posts and recruitment records
needs fixingThe manager reported six vacant posts. Bank and agency staff were being used, and inspectors could not fully check recruitment records because some were held at the main office.
“Some recruitment information was held at the main office of Milestones Trust so we were unable to fully check all records were in place.” from the report
Overdue or pending safety checks
needs fixingMonthly checks had not been completed in March and April. Other gas, electrical and equipment checks were due, but the manager did not yet have dates for them.
“The new manager told us they had reviewed this area when they commenced in post and saw these had not been completed in March and April 2018.” from the report
Environmental risks
needs fixingPart of the garden was uneven and had been sectioned off. The conservatory was very warm, and open windows could create a risk for people walking past.
“Whilst no one had bumped their head, this could be a potential risk to people walking past the open window.” from the report
Care record detail
minorA person's use of hand weights at mealtimes was recorded in the care overview but not in the eating support plan. Staff said they would update it.
“The use of the weights was recorded in the care plan overview but not on the person's support with eating care plan.” from the report
- 01Have all six vacant posts now been filled, and how do you ensure bank or agency staff know each person's needs?
- 02Have the outstanding gas, electrical and equipment checks been completed, and can we see the dates and outcomes?
- 03What has been done to make the uneven garden area and the open conservatory windows safe?
- 04Are all people's communication, eating support and equipment needs recorded in the correct care plans?
- 05Have the annual medical checks that were due in March 2018 taken place, and are any follow-up actions outstanding?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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 Mulberry House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 July 2017.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
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 £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.