CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mulberry House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Mulberry House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and better management systems than at the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 5 and 13 July 2023. The visits were unannounced, followed by an announced visit. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment files, rotas and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found improvements in infection control, medicines, risk management, personalised care, activities and management oversight.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in July 2021. The home had previously breached Regulation 17 about good governance. Inspectors found enough improvement for the home to no longer be in breach.
Improved infection control
Inspectors found that cleaning practice and equipment had improved, with infection control guidance being followed.
“At this inspection we found practice had improved, equipment had been replaced to ensure effective cleaning could be maintained and government guidelines were being followed.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. There were clearer instructions for medicines used when needed and for anticipatory medicines at the end of life.
“Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff, including support for people needing one-to-one time. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started.
“There were enough staff to support people safely. Staffing levels were assessed based on people's care needs and changed accordingly.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were offered activities based on their interests and could choose whether to join group activities or receive individual time.
“Group activities and entertainment were scheduled, and people chose what they attended.” from the report
Clearer management oversight
The home had a clear management structure and quality checks were being used to identify and address improvements.
“There was a clear management structure that staff understood.” from the report
Complaints information was not clear to everyone
needs fixingSome relatives were unsure how to make a complaint. The manager re-issued the complaints process during the inspection.
“Some relatives were not clear on the procedure to follow. This was raised with the registered manager who ensured a copy of the complaints process was re-issued to ensure availability and clarity on the procedure to follow.” from the report
Communication with some relatives
minorAlthough relatives received individual updates, the report says some relatives felt communication could be better. Ask how you would receive updates about changes, incidents or concerns.
“Other relatives said communication could be improved.” from the report
- 01How will you communicate with me about incidents, changes in care and my relative's progress?
- 02How can I make a complaint, and who should I contact if I am not satisfied with the response?
- 03What activities and individual time would be available for my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 04How are the improved quality checks being kept up to date since the previous inspection?
- 05How would you manage my relative's specific health risks, medicines and need for one-to-one support?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the report does not give current ratings for Effective or Caring. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 2023 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, July 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safer staffing and caring support, but important gaps remained in records, infection control and management checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 and 19 May 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, incident records and management systems.
The home had made some improvements since the previous inspection, including safer recruitment and a computerised care planning system. Staff generally knew people well, supported activities and helped people maintain relationships and independence.
However, some areas were not clean or easy to clean. Some records did not fully explain people's needs, incidents were not always recorded, and some people did not have call bells. The systems used to check quality had not found all these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, responsive and well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Effective and caring were not assessed during this focused inspection.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff and safer recruitment checks were completed before people started work.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Staff knew people
Staff understood people's needs and preferences. They supported people with communication, mobility, health needs and personal routines.
“Staff knew people well and provided the care people needed.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could join activities such as games, cooking, gardening and outings. Some activities helped people maintain mobility and everyday skills.
“People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities that were important to them.” from the report
Visits and family contact
The home supported visits during the pandemic, including visits for named visitors, essential care givers and people receiving end of life care.
“People were supported to receive visits from family and friends in line with government guidance.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
needs fixingSome areas and equipment were not clean or easy to clean. Inspectors also found that cleaning records did not reflect the cleaning staff said was taking place.
“We found areas of the home that were not clean and tidy.” from the report
Incidents not always recorded
seriousTwo incidents of physical aggression recorded in daily notes had not been reported as incidents. This meant the provider did not have a complete overview of what had happened.
“These occurrences had not been reported as incidents.” from the report
Missing call bells
seriousSome people did not have call bells, and there was no information explaining why. One person's call bell was restored after inspectors raised the issue.
“Some people did not have call bells and there was no information about why this was.” from the report
Limited feedback and weak oversight
seriousPeople, relatives and professionals were not routinely asked for feedback. Some audits had not identified problems with infection control, bed rail protection and records.
“The provider had not assured appropriate systems and processes were in place to fully assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Anticipatory medicines guidance
needs fixingStaff knew when end of life medicines might be needed, but there were no written protocols explaining when or why they should be used.
“However, there were no protocols to guide staff about when or why they may be needed.” from the report
- 01How are you making sure care plans explain why a person stays in bed and how that decision was made?
- 02How do you check that every person who needs one has a working call bell?
- 03What written guidance is now in place for anticipatory end of life medicines?
- 04How are incidents, including behaviour that may challenge, recorded and reviewed?
- 05What action plan and timetable are being used to complete repairs, improve cleaning and strengthen audits?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not assessed, and the previous ratings for those areas were not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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.
Every inspection of Mulberry House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful 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.