CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Mullion
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe staffing, suitable safeguarding systems and person-centred risk management. Some medicine records had not always been completed in line with best practice, although action was taken during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had suitable training and induction, and people were supported with nutrition and access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, effective quality checks and a person-centred culture. The home was also working to improve medicine audit records and care record keeping.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found person-centred care and safe staffing, but some medicine records were incomplete.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 June 2022. Inspectors reviewed Safe, Effective and Well-led because of concerns about safeguarding and management oversight. They spoke with staff, observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were managed in a personal way and staffing levels were safe. People received support with food, health appointments, medicines, family contact and making their own choices.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led. This overall rating included the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit. The rating had remained Good since the previous inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff appeared unhurried and responsive, and staffing was adjusted when people's needs changed.
“we observed safe staffing levels throughout the inspection; staff appeared unhurried and responsive to people.” from the report
Person-centred support
Staff knew people's individual needs and supported positive risk taking, choice and independence.
“Staff anticipated and managed risk in a person-centred way, there was a culture of positive risk taking.” from the report
Staff training
Staff said they felt confident and competent. New and agency staff received induction and shadow shifts to learn how people wanted to be supported.
“Staff new to the service, including agency staff, were supported with a robust induction programme.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with health professionals and supported people to access treatment and specialist advice when needed.
“The management and staff team worked in partnership with a variety of healthcare professionals and had developed good working relationships which supported positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends, including through video calls and visits.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their family members and friends throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine records were not completed fully in line with best practice. The provider took action during the inspection and was working to improve the records.
“However, we found some records relating to medicines had not always been completed in line with best practice.” from the report
Outstanding maintenance
minorSome parts of the older building needed maintenance. The provider knew about the outstanding work and had plans to improve areas including the kitchen units.
“There was some required maintenance, and some outstanding actions, that once completed would enhance the environment.” from the report
Care record keeping
needs fixingInspectors found staff did not always record the person-centred care they were observed providing. This had been discussed with staff as an area for improvement.
“staff were not always consistently recording the person-centred care they were observed delivering.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to make sure all medicine administration records are fully and accurately completed?
- 02How are medicine audits checked now, and how are any errors followed up?
- 03Which outstanding maintenance issues remain, including work to the kitchen units, and when will they be finished?
- 04How do managers check that staff record the person-centred care they provide?
- 05How will the home support the person to build independence and take part in the local community?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the Caring and Responsive ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 2022 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, December 2017
The Mullion is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some concerns about staff recruitment and activities.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 12 October 2017. It was announced 24 hours beforehand. The inspector spoke with managers and staff, observed care, checked care records, medicines, risk assessments, recruitment and training records, and spoke with relatives and health and social care professionals afterwards.
The home supports up to three adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found a friendly atmosphere and kind care that reflected people's individual needs and preferences. Medicines management had improved after earlier errors. Staff supported people's health, choices, food and drink, activities and contact with relatives.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home remained Good, the same overall rating as at the previous inspection in June 2015.
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, independence and choices. Families and professionals gave positive feedback about the care.
“All of the staff that I have met have a very caring nature” from the report
Improved medicines safety
The report says medicines management had improved after earlier errors. Staff had training and competency checks, and medicines were checked twice a day.
“Medicines were checked and counted twice a day so that any potential errors would be identified quickly and action taken.” from the report
Good health support
Staff noticed changes in people's health and contacted doctors and other professionals when needed. They supported people with health appointments, nutrition and specialist guidance.
“Staff were proactive in requesting visits or reviews from health professionals, such as GP's or other health care professionals.” from the report
Personalised activities and support
Staff recorded what people enjoyed and changed plans when activities caused distress or were not suitable. Support plans reflected individual communication and preferences.
“the team adapted the plan to make it more suitable and service user-led.” from the report
Improved management systems
Inspectors found an open culture, regular team meetings and new quality checks. Professionals said management changes had improved communication and care.
“The quality of the care provided has improved and the atmosphere in the house feels much more positive.” from the report
Recruitment and agency cover
needs fixingThe home was trying to fill vacant posts and used agency staff. Relatives and a professional were concerned that agency staff might know people less well or might not have the right training if covering sickness.
“Two relatives commented about staff changes due to staff leaving and the difficulties of recruiting and that agency staff did not know people as well as regular staff.” from the report
Range of activities
needs fixingOne relative felt a person spent too much time in the lounge and was not offered activities as much as others. Going outside required two staff, which could affect the activities available.
“They were also concerned that the person was "In the lounge a lot" and staff were not engaging them with activities as much as other people” from the report
Manager responsible for three services
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the inspection. The current manager had applied for registration and was responsible for the day-to-day management of three services, which worried some relatives.
“One manager trying to run three places doesn't work” from the report
- 01How are shifts covered when regular staff are away, and how do you make sure agency staff know each person's needs and have the required training?
- 02What activities are currently planned for someone who needs two staff to go outside?
- 03Has the current manager now completed CQC registration, and how is management cover organised across the three services?
- 04How do you monitor medicines errors and make sure staff remain competent to administer emergency epilepsy medicines?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans, activities and changes in a person's health or behaviour?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and included observations, records, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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 The Mullion
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.