CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Munhaven
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing and managing admissions and possible outbreaks. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Munhaven was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had created safer visiting arrangements, including a garden visiting pod and plans for indoor visits in colder weather. It had also made extra arrangements for people receiving end of life care and employed an activities co-ordinator to reduce isolation.
The home was not given an overall rating or a rating for Safe. The inspection report records the service as inspected but not rated, so this visit does not show whether the home was Good or Outstanding overall.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home had created a garden visiting pod and planned indoor visits for colder weather. It also made extra arrangements for people receiving end of life care to have visitors.
“Relatives had been visiting people in the service in a specially designed pod in the garden which allowed for two relatives to visit at the same time with a large screen between them and the person who lived in service.” from the report
Support with isolation
The home recognised the risk of people becoming isolated and employed an activities co-ordinator to support wellbeing and links with the local community.
“The manager had recognised the risk to people of isolation and had employed an activities co-ordinator to help improve the wellbeing of the people who lived in the service and continued links with the local community” from the report
Up-to-date policy
Inspectors were assured that the infection prevention and control policy was current.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorThe report does not identify a specific failure, but inspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control improvements were made after inspectors signposted the home to further resources?
- 02How do visits work now, including indoor visits and visits for people receiving end of life care?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if there is a suspected outbreak?
- 04How does the home support residents who may feel isolated, and what activities are available now?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for care, staffing, medicines, responsiveness and leadership, as this inspection did not assess them?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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, August 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally effective, caring, responsive and well-led care, with safety rated Good.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 12 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with one person, eight relatives and six staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was found to be safe, with enough staff, suitable risk assessments and medicines managed correctly. Inspectors found exceptionally strong training, personalised care, support with food and drink, and work with health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was tailored to individual needs, including social activities and end of life support. Leadership, staff support and quality checks were judged exceptional.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Safe was rated Good, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. Since the last inspection, the overall rating improved from Good, with Caring, Responsive and Well-led also improving from Good to Outstanding.
Kind and respectful care
Staff formed trusting relationships and treated people as individuals. Inspectors saw compassionate care and support for dignity, choice and independence.
“People and relatives couldn't speak highly enough about the consistently kind and compassionate care provided.” from the report
Highly personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication styles well. Care was adapted when needs changed, and people were supported to take part in activities and community life.
“The service was extremely responsive to people's needs and everyone spoke very positively about the impact of the care received.” from the report
Strong staff skills
Training covered dementia, medicines, safeguarding and end of life care. Staff had additional specialist roles and showed a strong understanding of the people they supported.
“People using the service were supported by an exceptionally well trained and highly skilled workforce.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
Managers were approachable and supported staff development. Audits and feedback were used to identify and make improvements.
“Internal monitoring and audits demonstrated that the service benefitted from robust and effective quality assurance mechanisms, which ensured continual service improvement.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Risk assessments were updated and staff knew how to reduce identified risks. Inspectors found accurate medicine records, safe storage and regular checks.
“Medicines were managed safely and in line with service policies and procedures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you personalise care for my relative's dementia, communication style, routines and interests?
- 02How do you monitor food and drink intake, weight and hydration, and what would you do if these changed?
- 03How are medicines reviewed with health professionals, including whether any medicines can be reduced?
- 04How would you respond if my relative became distressed, confused or unsettled?
- 05How would you involve our family in end of life care planning and support?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the premises, care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 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 Munhaven
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.