Archived: Meylan House

Updated 7 August 2015

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

This unannounced inspection took place on 25 June 2015. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors. Before the visit we looked at notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about in law.

We spoke with two people who lived at the service and two relatives. We spoke with three members of care staff, the registered manager, and Assistant Area Director. We spoke with staff from three local authority learning disability teams. We looked at four people’s care records, two staff files and medicine and administration records. We also looked at a range of records relating to the management of the home. We looked around the home and observed the way staff interacted with people.

We reviewed feedback from people who had used the service and their relatives.

Updated 7 August 2015

We inspected Meylan House on 25 June 2015. It was an unannounced inspection. The service had not previously been inspected.

The service supports up to seven adults with learning disabilities and/or complex behavioural needs, as well as autism. At the time of the inspection there were four people using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Arrangements were in place to protect people who used the service from the risks of abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff and they were clear about their responsibilities to report abuse and where to report abuse outside of the organisation. Staff had received safeguarding training and records confirmed this. CQC had been notified of relevant incidents, which meant we could follow up any actions needed with the provider. The service had procedures to carry out checks out of hours to ensure care at these times was safe.

People had assessments which considered potential risks when they did activities and to ensure their health was protected.

Medicines were managed safely, which ensured people received the right medicine at the right time.

People were supported in a caring and respectful way. Appropriate health professionals had been consulted with where needed. Staff showed a caring approach to people in the service.

People were involved in menu planning, shopping and supported if they wanted to assist with food preparation. People liked the food and drink and mealtimes were relaxed and sociable. Risk assessments for eating and drinking had been completed and appropriate professional referrals made if risks were identified.

The provider, registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions or who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

Activities in the home were tailored to suit people’s individual needs and preferences and each person had a personal activity schedule. This included activities in the home as well as trips out into the community. Where they were able, people were involved in the running of the home. People were involved in the recruitment of new staff and had received training to help them with this.

There was an open culture and staff had access to the management team. One staff member told us they had been encouraged to suggest ways the service could improve. This had made them feel valued.

The staff had good relationships with relatives which helped communication. A relative commented “staff are always the same when I visit; they don’t seem to have bad days which is reassuring.”