Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Maryfield Court, Whalley Range, Manchester.

Maryfield Court in Whalley Range, Manchester is a Hospitals - Mental health/capacity specialising in the provision of services relating to assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the 1983 act, caring for adults under 65 yrs, caring for people whose rights are restricted under the mental health act, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 3rd April 2019

Maryfield Court is managed by ASC Healthcare Limited who are also responsible for 1 other location

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Maryfield Court
      Nettleford Road
      Whalley Range
      Manchester
      M16 8NJ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01618620431

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-04-03
    Last Published 2019-04-03

Local Authority:

    Manchester

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We rated Maryfield Court as requires improvement because:

  • We found that full physical health screening that included the taking of full histories, on admission, was not completed by staff. Only three patients had had a full history taken and physical examination take place.
  • Agency staff when making entries into the electronic care recording system generated the same identification number. Staff should have an individual security pass which identifies their usage of computer systems.
  • Information about patients was recorded in different places. New users of the systems would be unclear were to access current information or assessments.
  • Staff told us they were unaware that audits of care records were formerly recorded so it was difficult to establish how staff became aware of quality assurance issues.

However:

  • The service provided safe care and the ward environment was well maintained, furnished and clean. There were enough staff with the right skills to meet the needs of the patients.

  • Patients using the service told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and described the staff as caring and helpful. We observed that staff took time to communicate with patients in a respectful and compassionate manner.

  • Regular multidisciplinary meetings were held and attendance by outside agencies was encouraged. Families and carers were involved in this process where appropriate. Advocacy services were accessible and available to support patients.

  • The ward environments were effectively managed and risks mitigated with the use of observation. Staff conducted regular environmental quality checks and patients could discuss and resolve environmental issues in community meetings.

  • The wards had enough staff on shifts. Patients were supported by a skilled multidisciplinary team of staff which included nursing, psychiatric, psychological and occupational therapy support.

  • Staff received supervision and appraisal and worked together as a multidisciplinary team.
  • The service maintained good links with other external agencies that formed part of the patient’s care pathway.
  • Medicines were appropriately stored, administered and reconciled on all wards. All medicine was in date and labelled.
  • Staff were trained in the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act. Staff followed local procedures and support was available from a Mental Health Act administrator. Patients were given information and support to ensure appropriate representation and aid understanding of their rights.
  • Staff we spoke with were positive about their roles and were positive about service development. Staff felt able to raise concerns without fear of victimisation and spoke positively about the organisation. They told us that they felt valued, had input into the service and were consulted and involved in service quality developments.

 

 

Latest Additions: