We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Malting's Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Malting's Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The service was only receiving essential visitors at the time of our inspection. Visitors were required to take a Lateral Flow Test (LFT). This test enables the provider to test for COVID –19 and have results within a short period of time. There were stations to wash hands and personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to everyone to keep people safe.
People living in the service had their meal times and activities staggered to support better ways of social distancing. Communal spaces had been adapted to ensure social distancing was maintained. The provider had installed a “pod” into the home to support safe visiting. Relatives accessed the pod from the garden, the provider had installed a partitioned wall with a big viewing pane for good visibility and a two-way speaker system that allowed good communication.
People were supported by staff in full PPE, this is called barrier nursing. This is to protect both staff and people living in the service from spreading infections. Staff received training in infection prevention and the correct procedure for putting on and removing PPE, this is called donning and doffing.
The registered manager told us that they had changed systems within the service to reduce the spread of infection. For example, the same staff would work in the same areas this is known as cohorting and is good infection control practice. The home had no COVID-19 cases at the time of the inspection but were still applying these good practices.
The building was clean and free from clutter. During our inspection we observed cleaning staff completing their duties. The registered manager told us that frequently touched areas were cleaned more often. The home had infection control champions they would ensure on a weekly check list that there were enough PPE in stock and that appropriate signage was in place throughout the home. Staff were also observed individually to ensure donning and doffing procedures and guidance were followed.
The registered manager told us that they were working collaboratively with the General Practitioner (GP) from the local surgery who was their clinical lead. The provider spoke highly of the GP and confirmed the GP had been very supportive and involved with the home, they had supported staff with good guidance around infection control.
The registered manager told us that they were working collaboratively with colleagues from the Local Authority and CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) and were well supported as a result.
The Malting’s Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 45 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 50 people over two different floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had systems in place to manage risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff followed good practice guidelines to prevent the spread of infection and gave people their medicines safely.
Staff received training, supervision, guidance and support so that they could do their job well. They worked well as a team.
People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring and made sure people’s privacy was respected. Staff did everything they could to make people’s lives as comfortable and fulfilling as possible.
People were involved in making decisions about their care. Their preferences on how staff delivered their care was recorded in their care records. This included their end of life wishes.
The service was well managed by a registered manager and regular input from the nominated individual and directors. The management team were passionate about giving people a high-quality service.
Staff used varying systems to monitor the quality of care being delivered to people. Complaints and concerns had been followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify the issue. People, staff and relatives had been given opportunities to provide their view of the service and from this feedback action was taken to change and improve areas.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 05 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 30 March 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection under the provider’s current registration.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection and had been registered with this provider since 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
Staff knew what the types and signs of harm were, how to keep people safe and who they could report any incident of harm to. A sufficient number of safely recruited and competent staff were in place to meet people’s individual care needs. People were looked after by staff whose suitability to look after them had been robustly determined.
People’s medicines were managed and administered safely by staff whose competence to do this had been assessed. Risk assessments for subjects such as skin integrity, moving and handling and administration of medicines were in place and up to date. This helped keep people safe.
People’s needs were met and supported by trained and skilled staff who knew the people they cared for well. People were supported with their health care needs and access to these services when required. Staff adhered to the advice healthcare professionals provided.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and to report on what we find. People’s mental capacity had been accurately determined. Although people’s capacity was not always decision specific the provider was working with the local authority’s best interest assessor in improving the accuracy of people’s DoLS applications. Staff had an awareness of the application of the MCA and DoLS code of practice. Where people needed to have restrictions on their liberty, these had been authorised by the local authority.
People’s privacy and dignity was provided by staff in a respectful way. People were involved as much as they wanted in the planning of their care. People were enabled to access advocacy services and where required had relatives who could lawfully have a say in they were looked after.
People were provided with various opportunities to help reduce the risk of social isolation. A range of pastimes, hobbies, activities and access to the community was provided. People were supported by staff to be as independent as possible.
People’s concerns, suggestions and complaints were recorded and acted upon promptly. Compliments were used to identify what worked well.
The registered manager was supported by a compliance manager, nursing, senior care and care staff, catering and domestic staff. Staff had regular updates to their training, mentoring, coaching and support from management.
Most audits and quality assurance processes were effective in identifying ways to improve the service. This was due to the subjects covered and the staff who undertook this role. However, these audits did not cover all areas and this meant that the management of people’s information was not robust as it could have been. People’s views about the quality of the service had been sought. People, their relatives and staff were able to make suggestions. This was to improve and maintain the quality of the service that was provided.