Margaret House Care Home Ltd

People were satisfied with the meals provided. However, dietary records were not consistently completed. 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. However, there were no supporting care plans in relation to Deprivation of Liberty applications. Staff received appropriate training and an annual appraisal of their work performance. We were told the manager was due to arrange supervision meetings with staff. People's healthcare needs were recorded in their care plan. However, staff were provided with inconsistent advice about monitoring 2 people's blood sugars, and were not maintaining a consistent record. Some areas of the home looked worn and damaged and would benefit from redecoration and refurbishment.

People's rights to privacy and dignity were not always promoted and upheld. We noted people's bedrooms were not always well presented and apart from 1 bedroom there were no curtains at windows. Whilst there were blinds, these were not in a good condition. We also noted there was no privacy glass on a bathroom window. People were satisfied with the care provided and we observed caring interactions throughout the inspection.

The provider had arrangements for planning care, however, one person did not have a care plan accessible to staff and other people's care plans had not always been reviewed and updated. We noted the manager was in the process of developing new care plans which were stored on the computer. We made a recommendation about ensuring up to date care plans were readily accessible to staff. We saw limited evidence to demonstrate people were involved in the development and review of their care plan. People had few opportunities to participate in activities. Although there were arrangements for monthly discussions

with people, records indicated these had not always taken place. The deputy manager assured us the discussions would be reinstated.

Whilst the management team had carried out a series of audits as part of the governance systems, we found a number of shortfalls during the inspection in respect to the management of risks and medicines and the maintenance of records. We also found people were given limited opportunities to express their views. There was evidence of only one residents' meeting during 2022. Whilst the nominated individual explained satisfaction surveys had recently been distributed, we saw no evidence of previous surveys.

The manager was away on annual leave at the time of the inspection. Following our visit, the nominated individual sent us an action plan setting out their response to the inspection findings.