MELM Care Solutions

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were not always protected from risk of financial exploitation, as risk assessments and oversight processes were not effective at ensuring financial security. Hand drying facilities were not always available, this prevented effective hand hygiene. There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines as prescribed, and the providers systems and processes supported safe medicine practices.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people and their relative’s indicated concerns were responded to by the provider and action was taken in response to incidents. One relative told us, “I asked if [Relative] could spend more time with a particular staff member as [Relative] responds well to them, and the provider facilitated this.”

Staff told us the provider was responsive to suggestions and concerns.

Feedback from the local authority indicated the provider was not always immediately responsive to concerns. They told us they had notified the provider in February 2024 of shortfalls in relation to care planning and a lack of decision specific mental capacity assessments. At this assessment, we found the provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure these had been fully addressed. This meant the provider had not ensured timely and effective learning in response to feedback.

The providers systems and processes enabled incidents to be responded too effectively but did not always ensure a timely response to feedback from external stake holders.

Feedback from people using the service and one of their relatives indicated staff supported them to contact health professionals when required. One person told us, “[Staff name] helps me when I don’t feel well.”

Feedback from staff indicated concerns were responded to and the provider was open to feedback. The provider described a number of systems in place to monitor people’s needs and promote safety at the service.

One health and social care professional told us, “[Person] seems to be getting on really well. They seem to be really settled and gets on with the staff.”

Processes were in place to enable a smooth transition between services and to reduce the impact on people. The provider had a robust system in place to record and monitor people’s daily support.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at the service. One person told us, “Yes I feel safe with [Staff member].”

Staff received training on safeguarding and verbally demonstrated they knew how to identify and raise concerns. However, staff and leaders did not always have good oversight of risk to people as they failed to identify weaknesses in financial management procedures that left people vulnerable to the risk of financial exploitation.

We found people’s personal finances were not always being safely handled to ensure the risk of financial exploitation was minimised.

The providers systems and processes were not effective at ensuring financial security for people. We raised this with the provider, and they took action to safeguard people and improve systems and processes.

Feedback from one relative indicated they felt more work was needed in relation to risk planning to ensure people received suitable support in the community.

Staff and leaders told us they always considered people’s views when assessing risk.

We observed open discussions taking place with people about their daily routines and engagement.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always effective as they did not always contain sufficient detail to ensure risks were fully explored. Care reviews documented engagement with people.

Feedback from people using the service and their relatives about the environment was positive. People told us they liked their home and felt comfortable.

Care staff told us they didn’t have any concerns regarding the environment, and they felt comfortable raising concerns with the provider, who they felt was responsive.

The environment was suitable for people living at the service and was safe.

Processes were in place to ensure a safe environment for people using the service. For example, there were environmental risk assessments in place outlining procedures for ensuring a safe environment. Fire risk plans were in place to ensure safe evacuation. Fire risk assessments were completed, and alarms were tested.

People spoke fondly about their care staff and relatives told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people were well supported. One person told us, “Ye I like [Staff Member], they help me with things.”

The care coordinator demonstrated how they frame staffing rotas around the needs of people living at the service. Support staff told us they received suitable training to meet the needs of people at the service, and there were enough staff at the service to meet people’s needs. The provider described how they assessed dependency to understand suitable staffing requirements.

We obsvered there enough staff with suitable knowledge at the service to meet people’s needs.

Safe recruitment checks were completed for new staff, and the care certificate was used to ensure staff had the essential skills to meet the 15 standards. There was a training matrix in place to ensure that all staff completed mandatory training. Staff received private supervision and appraisals to provide them with an opportunity to raise concerns and to manage performance.

There were no concerns raised by people and their relatives in relation to infection prevention and control, or the use of personal protective equipment by staff.

Staff described effective use of personal protective equipment.

We obsvered the service to be suitably clean and there were suitable stocks of personal protective equipment available for staff. However, there was no hand drying facilities in one of the toilets. This prevented people and staff from ensuring effective hand hygiene.

Health and safety policies were in place and environmental checks were completed. However, these checks did not identify shortfalls with hand drying facilities.

People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who understood their needs. Feedback from people and relatives indicated they were satisfied with the support they received in relation to medicines. One person told us, “I like staff, they help me with my tablets.”

Staff said they felt supported by leaders and had received suitable training to administer and manage medicines safely. Staff described how medicines were ordered, checked and administrations recorded. Staff understood people's needs and how best to support them with their medicines. The registered manager demonstrated suitable knowledge safe medicine practices.

We observed suitable medicine stocks were available for people and medicines were stored in a locked cupboard to ensure people’s safety.

The providers systems and processes supported safe medicine practices. Digital administration records were used to monitor administrations, and these were completed regularly. Audit processes ensured safe medicine compliance. There was a medicines policy in place that contained information and guidance to ensure the safe handling of medicines.