Magdalen House Care Home

Since our last inspection there had been a new provider and several management changes which had impacted on the stability in the home. Staff feedback and morale was mixed, several cited too many changes at once and inconsistent messaging from management which caused confusion.

The management team comprised of the provider's regional manager and the deputy manager. They were open and honest about the shortfalls at the home. They engaged with the inspection positively and were committed to making any necessary improvements in the home. We were given assurances that the regional manager would be visible in the home supported by the deputy manager till a successful manager was appointed. Feedback about the regional manager who was previously the registered manager in the home was positive along with the deputy manager.

Governance and oversight systems had identified gaps within the home and the regional manager with support from the deputy manager were working to improve the standards and culture in the home and shared with us the action plan they were implementing. These took into account the inconsistencies we had found but it was too soon to assess the effectiveness of the proposed changes. These need to be sustained and embedded into the home.

There were ongoing improvements to the staffing levels, including recruiting new staff. Vacancies and the use of agency staff had reduced. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and they had been recruited safely.

Systems were in place to reduce the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns about people's care and safety. Staff were familiar with people's assessed medical needs and associated risks. These were monitored and managed safely.

People were provided with their medicines safely. The home was visibly clean and good infection control processes followed. Relatives told us they could visit their family members when they chose to.

Processes were in place to learn lessons when things had gone wrong with actions taken to reduce future incidents happening.

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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.