Archived: Myland House

Updated 27 April 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type: Myland House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from the local authority. We assessed the information in the provider information return. This is key information providers are required to send us about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

During the inspection, we spoke with three people who used the service, to ask about their experience of the care provided. We observed staff providing support to people in the communal areas of the service. This was so we could understand people's experiences. By observing the care received, we could determine whether or not they were comfortable with the support they were provided with.

We spoke with five members of staff including the registered manager, team leader, two support workers and maintenance staff.

We reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the service was managed. This included looking at three people's care records, medicines administration records. We reviewed records of meetings, staff rotas and staff training records. We also reviewed the records of accidents, incidents and quality assurance audits the management team had completed.

Updated 27 April 2019

About the service: Myland House is a residential care home that provides personal care and support for up to five people with complex neurological needs following a traumatic or acquired brain injury. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received care from staff who knew them well. People told us staff were kind, caring in their approach and promoted their independence.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided, and to drive improvements where this was required. The service considered people's feedback and was continuously trying to improve the service.

People were cared for by staff who knew how to keep them safe and protect them from avoidable harm. Sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs and people told us when they needed assistance, staff responded promptly. People received their medicines regularly and systems were in place for the safe management and supply of medicines. Incidents and accidents were investigated, and actions were taken to prevent recurrence.

People received a service which was personalised and met their needs. The care provided enabled them to remain as independent as possible. Care plans contained explanations of the control measures for staff to follow to keep people safe. Support was planned and delivered in a structured way to ensure people's safety and wellbeing. Staff had access to up to date information about how to support people and communication with health and social care professionals was effective in ensuring people received joined up care.

The service continued to be well led. The management team worked well to lead the staff team in their roles and ensure people continued to receive a good service. Staff and the registered manager showed a genuine interest and passion to deliver personalised care based on people's likes, wishes and preferences.

People had access to a variety of nutritious meals and snacks and were supported to learn skills in food preparation and cooking. People’s weights were monitored.

Staff were aware of people's life history and preferences. They used this information to develop positive relationships and deliver person centred care. People’s end of life care was considered, and people supported to express their views.

There was a varied range of social activities on offer. Staff encouraged people to participate in group and one to one activities of interest to the individual.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published on 21 October 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk