Melwood Grange

This was the first assessment of the service since it was registered with CQC on 3 October 2024. Following this assessment, we have rated the service as requires improvement.

We identified a breach of regulation regarding good governance because certain aspects of medicines management and infection control did not meet safety standards and needed improvement. Moreover, provider audits failed to detect these problems during their service monitoring.

Although the provider conducted audits and senior staff acknowledged awareness of the concerns detailed in the report, appropriate corrective actions had not been implemented or integrated into everyday practice.

We will request an action plan from the provider outlining the improvements they intend to make.

The registered manager had been in post for approximately seven months at the time of our assessment. They demonstrated the provider’s values and had a clear vision for the future of the home.

The environment was clean and well maintained, with no trip hazards. There were well used communal areas for people to socialise and engage in activities.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from abuse and harm and to follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider could evidence that lessons were learned when things went wrong.

We observed staff serving lunch and found the mealtime experience to be good. Some staff were engaged with people and offered choices and support as required.

People told us they felt safe, and staff treated them with kindness, respect, and compassion. Staff knew people well and supported them in a dignified way. Relatives described staff as caring and attentive, and we observed warm, patient interactions throughout the home.

Care plans included people’s life histories, personal preferences and outcomes. Staff worked proactively with external professionals when they were involved, sought medical input when needed, and kept families informed. Care plans were reviewed, when people were referred to health professionals as required.

Feedback regarding staffing levels was varied. Some people, including both residents and staff members, felt that additional staff would enhance the service and provide greater support.

Staff opinions about support from the registered manager were also mixed. While some staff members reported feeling unsupported at times, others described the registered manager as approachable and supportive. This information was fed back following the onsite visit. Care plans included people’s life histories, personal preferences and outcomes. Care plans were reviewed, and people were referred to health professionals as required.