Myrtle Care Providers Limited

Where the provider had identified shortfalls in the service, they took action to bring about improvement. For example, they had identified people's care plans could be improved to provide increased guidance for staff on how to consistently provide people's care. The registered manager was part-way through these reviews when we inspected.

We received positive feedback about the service people received and the way it was managed. People and relatives used words such as, "Very good," "Fabulous," and "Amazing" to describe the service provided. The registered manager and staff were approachable, accessible, and sought people's views about the service.

People felt safe receiving the service and were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns.

People were treated with respect and their independence was promoted. They were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to manage and maintain their healthcare needs. Staff liaised with external care professionals to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

Staff had the time to ensure they met people's needs safely, and in a way that suited them. Staff told people if they were going to be late. People received care from a small team of staff who were well trained and felt very well supported.

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. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff supported people to express their views and consulted them about their care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk