Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Myford House Nursing & Residential Home, Horsehay, Telford.

Myford House Nursing & Residential Home in Horsehay, Telford is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia, diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 21st April 2020

Myford House Nursing & Residential Home is managed by Clarendon Care Group Limited who are also responsible for 2 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Myford House Nursing & Residential Home
      Woodlands Lane
      Horsehay
      Telford
      TF4 3QF
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01952503286
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

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

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-04-21
    Last Published 2019-03-13

Local Authority:

    Telford and Wrekin

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.

11th December 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Myford House is located in Telford, Shropshire. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people. On the day of our inspection, there were 31 people living in the home.

The inspection took place on 11 December 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

At our previous inspection on 26 and 27 October 2017, we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to the safe handling of medicines and good governance. At this inspection we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulations and that improvements had been made.

People were getting their medicine at the correct time and safe administering procedures were being followed. We observed staff were recording temperatures of the medicine room and fridge. However, there were inaccuracies with the results which had the potential to put people at risk. We also found that clearer instructions were needed for staff in relation to the administration of medicine via a gastric tube.

People were supported by sufficient staff who understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff felt well trained and supported.

Accident and incidents were investigated and records completed appropriately. Actions were put in place when required to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence.

People had up to date care plans and all staff had access to the information via newly introduced technology.

People's nutritional needs were met and they had access to home cooked meals, drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to consent to their care. Applications to deprive people of their liberty had been made to the correct authorities.

People were treated with compassion and given time to discuss their concerns.

People’s privacy and dignity was preserved.

People had access to a range of activities which their family members could join in if they wanted.

People's complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

People were supported by a manager who is registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The registered manager had governance systems in place which ensured issues were identified and acted upon. However, the issues around medicine storage had not been picked up although temperatures were being recorded.

The provider worked well with other agencies to support the practice in the home.

26th October 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Myford House is located in Telford, Shropshire. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 50 older people. On the day of our inspection, there were 28 people living in the home.

The inspection took place on 26 and 27 October 2017. Day one of the inspection was unannounced, and day two of the inspection was announced.

There was no registered manager at this service, and there had been no registered manager in post since May 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection on 14 and 15 August 2017, we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to staffing; person-centred care; safe care and treatment; dignity and respect; and good governance. The service was placed into special measures, which meant that significant improvements were required. At this inspection, we found the provider remained in breach two Regulations. These were in regard to the proper and safe use of medicines (safe care and treatment), and good governance. However, we found the provider was no longer in breach of the Regulations regarding person-centred care; staffing and dignity and respect.

Medicines were not always stored or administered safely. Not everyone had received their medicines at the correct time, which placed them at risk of harm.

Not all staff had received the necessary training relevant to their roles. The provider and manager had audits in place to monitor and improve the quality of care provided. Whilst the provider and manager had taken immediate action when health professionals the CQC had brought issues to their attention, their audits had not always been effective in identifying these concerns themselves.

People were sometimes placed in undignified situations and treated in a disrespectful manner.

There were sufficient staff on duty to safely meet people's needs, and staffing levels were kept under review. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place to ensure people were only supported by people who were suitable to work in care.

People's weight, food and fluid intakes were monitored and action taken to maintain people's health. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals, and their changing health and wellbeing needs were responded to.

Staff were positive and enthusiastic about the improvements made at Myford House. and the on-going improvements in place. Staff knew people well and there was a natural rapport and ease between staff and the people they care for.

.

14th August 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Myford House is located in Horsehay in Telford, Shropshire. The service provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 57 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection, there were 34 people living in the home.

The inspection took place on 14 and 15 August 2017. Day one of the inspection was unannounced, and day two was announced.

There was no registered manager at this service. A home manager had been in post for three months and had started the registration process with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection in January 2017, we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to good governance. At this inspection, we found the provider was still in breach of this regulation, as well as identifying four other breaches of Regulations. These were in relation to person-centred care; dignity and respect; safe care and treatment; and staffing.

People did not receive their medicines safely. Medicines were administered without being signed for, and without making the staff team aware they had been given. 'As required' medicines were given without a clear rationale for doing so, and without authorisation from the lead nurse. The nursing staff did not know how to safely administer one particular medicine.

People's risk assessments were not followed, which placed people at risk of harm and neglect. Staff were not always vigilant to changes in people's health, as per the risk assessments relating to their individual health conditions.

Where agency staff were used, they were not always inducted and supervised by experienced and senior staff members. Agency nurses were not supervised by the lead nurse, and the lead nurse had no oversight of clinical decisions made.

People did not always see health professionals when required. Their medical and health needs were not consistently reviewed. Changes in people's health and wellbeing were not responded to.

People's dignity was not upheld, including in relation to their personal care, appearance and hygiene.

The recording system used was unclear and unsafe. Important information about people's medication were not documented or shared. Care records contained inconsistent information, making it difficult to ascertain what their needs were and how they had presented that day.

Staff did not feel able to approach management with any concerns, including safeguarding concerns and whistle-blowing. They felt fearful in their roles, and morale was low.

The manager and the provider had been unaware of some of the concerns we brought to their attention during our inspection, and these had not been identified as part of their internal quality assurance measures.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special Measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review; if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, it will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service wil

24th January 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 and 30 January 2017.

Myford House Nursing and Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 57 older people and for people living with dementia. On the days of our inspection there were 38 people living there.

The home had a registered manager who was present for the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection in September 2016, we found people were not supported to manage their behaviours. At this inspection, staff had learnt new skills and received support from other healthcare services to enable them to safely help people to manage their behaviours. People may not always receive care and support in a timely manner because there were not always enough staff on duty. Care practices did not always protect people from the risk of harm. However, they were supported by staff to take their prescribed medicines. People felt safe living in the home and staff were aware of their responsibility of protecting them from the risk of potential abuse.

At our previous inspection it was highlighted that staff and managers did not have sufficient understanding about the Mental Capacity Act [MCA]. We also found there was a lack of understanding about when a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] application should be submitted to the local authority to lawfully deprive a person of their liberty. At this inspection staff had a better understanding of MCA and DoLS and people confirmed their consent was always obtained.

People were supported by staff who may not have received up to date training or an induction into their new role. People had a choice of meals but were not adequately supported by staff to eat and drink. People were assisted by staff to access relevant healthcare services when needed.

People were not cared for in a manner that promoted their right to dignity at all times. Care practices varied where some staff were more attentive to people’s needs than others. People were involved in planning their care to ensure their specific needs were catered for.

People were involved in their care assessment but they were not always supported to pursue their interests, hobbies or promote their independence. People could be confident their concerns would be listened to and action would be taken to attempt to resolve them.

People were at risk of inadequate care and support because the provider’s governance had not assessed, monitored or improved the service enough since the last inspection to promote quality standards. People were aware of who was running the home and were able to have a say about how the home should be run.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

14th September 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 14 and 15 September 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection completed in February 2016 we rated the service as ‘inadequate’ and placed it into special measures. We also found breaches of regulation regarding consent of people using the service, medicines management, staffing and the overall management of the service, including quality assurance systems. At the most recent inspection we found improvements had been made although there were still breaches in regulation.

Myford House is a nursing home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to 57 older people, most of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living at the service. The provider is also registered to carry out diagnostic and screening procedures at this location. At the time of the inspection, the provider was not carrying out this regulated activity therefore it was not inspected. A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by a staff team who could describe the signs of abuse. We did however, identify that concerns about people were not always reported to the registered manager and the local safeguarding authority when required. Risk management processes were in place which did protect people against harm in some aspects of their care. However, they did not effectively reduce the risks to people through behaviour by some that may challenge.

People were supported by sufficient staff numbers to meet their needs. Staff members had been recruited to their roles safely and pre-employment checks were completed. People were happy with the support they received with their medicines, however, recording issues meant we could not confirm if some medicines were given as prescribed.

People told us permanent staff had the skills required to support them effectively. However, not all people felt agency staff were able to meet their needs. We did identify areas in which staff did not have the required training and skills. People who lacked capacity to consent to their care did not always have their rights upheld by the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to maintain their day to day health needs and their nutritional needs were met.

People were supported by a staff team who were kind and caring in their approach. People’s privacy and dignity was protected and promoted. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Relatives were encouraged to visit without restriction and were part of the ‘community’ within the service.

People mostly received care that met their needs and preferences. People’s care plans did not always reflect their needs or the care they received. People were beginning to become involved in reviewing their care needs and developing their care plans. Staff were engaging people in day to day activities within the home although improvements were needed to the leisure opportunities made available to people. People felt able to make a complaint and complaints made were fully investigated by the provider.

People were not protected by quality assurance systems that always identified the improvements needed in the service or care being delivered to them. People were cared for by a staff team who felt well supported by management and were motivated and committed to their roles. People felt the registered manager had made significant improvements in the service.

We found the provider was breaching the regulations regarding safe care and treatment, the need for consent and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of

8th May 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe living in the service. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and could identify signs of abuse.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and kept under review.

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment. The provider employed a staff member who was responsible for ensuring that equipment was properly maintained. Staff spoken with told us that they felt their safety was maintained and that they worked in a safe environment.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. People told us that they felt the service met their needs. Staff had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs.

Staff told us they received effective support from their managers and said they found them approachable. This meant that staff felt able to raise any concerns with their manager.

Is the service caring?

Interactions between people and staff were positive and supportive. People appeared relaxed in the company of staff and were treated with respect. Staff promoted their independence, choice and dignity. People told us that they felt staff treated them well and on the whole respected their privacy and dignity. One person told us, “The majority of staff are very kind, they are so nice, friendly and helpful”.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they felt able to raise concerns. One person told us, “I have not had a reason to make a complaint, but I would have no problem in telling someone if I was not happy”. Another person told us, “The service is very good, staff are very kind, I have nothing to grumble about”.

We found that the service responded to people's changing needs. People had access to support and advice from the multidisciplinary team.

Is the service well led?

The service is managed by an experienced registered manager, who was well-supported by a senior manager. This meant that people benefited from receiving a service that was well led.

The quality of service provided by the home was regularly assessed and monitored. Regular audits were undertaken which included audits for health and safety, medication, care planning and infection control. This meant that people’s needs were regularly reviewed and risks to their health and wellbeing were assessed and identified promptly.

Staff told us that they felt part of a good team and that they were well supported by the management team. We were told that the management team were responsive to staff requests and could be easily approached with any concerns. Staff commented that they felt they provided a very good service which met people’s needs.

12th February 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We found that the service had improved their practices in recording the receipt, administration and disposal of medicines and were ensuring that medicines were administered and stored safely.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

16th October 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We visited the service because concerns regarding the medication management had been raised through the safeguarding of vulnerable adults process. We found that poor recording, administration and monitoring of medicines might have resulted in people not being fully protected against the risks associated with medicines.

We spoke to one person who used the service during the inspection and they told us that they were happy with the way the service looked after their medicines for them.

7th August 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We talked with some of the people who lived in this home and they said that they were well looked after. They said the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done. They said staff were always mindful of their privacy and treated them with respect.

People who lived in the home and their relatives told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, “The staff are very good” and another said, “The staff are lovely”.

The provider had developed a system whereby they can monitor how well the home was meeting the needs of the people who live there.

3rd February 2013 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

We arrived at this home at 6 a.m. and most of the people who lived there were still in bed.

We watched the staff looking after people as they arrived for breakfast. We saw that the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done, were always mindful of their privacy and treated them with respect.

We saw staff going from bedroom to bedroom to provide support to people and we saw the system they used to record this.

People who needed to have occasional medications were given so when needed and in accordance with agreed protocols.

We saw that staff were always available when people needed help. We saw that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally.

10th July 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We visited the home on 10 July 2012.

A number of the people who lived in this home were unable to tell us about their experiences. To understand what they experienced we looked at the records that the home had developed about five people. We found that this information was accurate enabling us to ask questions in a way that would allow people to understand what we were asking and therefore express what they thought.

People who lived in the home, as well as some of their relatives, told us that the staff had explained to them what care and treatment they would be receiving.

People told us that they had a range of meals that they could choose from and that it was well prepared and presented. One person said, “The food; I love it” and another said, “I love it here, the food is very nice”.

We were also told that there was a range of activities available for people to take part in should they wish to. We saw people enjoying some of those activities when we visited.

Some of the people who were living in the home said that there are regular meetings of all of the people who live there where they can raise and discuss any issues that are affecting the care that they are receiving.

We also talked to a number of people who were visiting friends or relatives. They told us that the home had always made them feel welcome.

The people who lived in this home felt able to raise any issues about which they had concerns with the manager or one of the staff.

Those people also told us that they feel safe living in this home. They were very complimentary about the people who work in the home saying such things as “They are a good crew”.

23rd August 2011 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out this review as part of our routine schedule of planned reviews and because concerns were identified in relation to:

• Care and welfare of people who use services

• Safeguarding people who use services from abuse

The inspection of the home was unannounced by two inspectors over a period of eight and a half hours. A range of evidence was used to make judgments about this service to include discussions with 15 people who use the service, six relatives, seven staff and the manager and operations manager. We were also shown a number of records these included care records for four people receiving a service, complaints, staff recruitment and training files and minutes of resident/relative and staff meetings.

People told us that,

“Someone from the home came to visit me before I came to live here. They asked me about what I needed and I was able to tell them how I prefer things to be done for me.”

“There are too many agency staff at night. I dread being put to bed and got up in the morning. They don’t know our needs like the permanent staff do.”

Two relatives told us that the new manager is very good and has made a difference in the home in the short time she has been in post. They reported she is kind and has taken time to meet them.

1st February 2011 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

People consider that they are involved in assessments of care and are aware that they have a care plan. They told us that the attitude of staff is good and they feel safe and well cared for at the home. Comments about food and drink were favourable and all felt they had enough to eat.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 1 and 2 February 2016 and was unannounced. We briefly returned to the home on 5 February 2016 to collect some documentation that we had requested. At the last inspection completed on 6 May 2014 the provider was meeting all of the regulations required by law.

Myford House Nursing and Residential Home is a service that provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 57 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 47 people living at the home with a range of needs including people living with dementia. There was no registered manager in post. The registered manager had left the home in September 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A Chief Operations Officer commenced working at the home in September 2015 to provide management and leadership and was supported by a support manager. A new manager had been appointed and commenced working at the home on 11 January 2016 and was due to submit an application to be registered.

Although most people told us they felt safe and staff knew how to protect them from potential harm the practices we saw and records we reviewed did not support this. Safeguarding incidents were not always recognised, dealt with or reported appropriately. Risks to people had not always been identified or effectively managed. Staffing levels were insufficient to meet people’s individual needs or to maintain their safety. Care was delayed because of the deployment and management of the staff. Systems to manage medicines were not always safe or effective and appropriate standards of hygiene were not always maintained.

New staff did not receive an effective and comprehensive induction to their work and not all staff had received essential training or updates. Staff told us they worked to the best of their abilities. People’s day-to-day health needs were not consistently met. People had access to external healthcare services when needed but recommendations made by some professionals had not been fully actioned. People’s records had not been immediately reviewed or updated to reflect their current needs. People were offered a choice of meals and enjoyed the food and drinks they received. However, records were not appropriately maintained so we could not be confident that people’s dietary requirements were being met. Staff knew how to gain people’s consent when supporting them but lacked an understanding and knowledge of protecting people’s rights. Staff were not aware of who was deprived of their liberty or what restrictions were in place.

Staff were caring in their approach and worked hard to attend to people’s needs. Care staff did not have time to sit and talk with people for any meaningful periods of time as they were busy focused on completing the tasks required of them. Most relatives we spoke with were happy with certain aspects of the care provided but raised concerns about low staffing levels, supervision of people and a lack of communication. People had access to an activities programme during the week, which they told us they enjoyed but had little to do at weekends. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People’s dignity, privacy and independence was mostly respected.

Most people did not feel involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care records were not up-to-date or person-centred and lacked detail about the support people required. Thisplaced people at risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate and unsafe care. People knew how to make a complaint but not everyone was confident that concerns raised were acted on.

People had experienced a number of changes in the management team, which had led to a lack of consistent leadership. The lack of strong and consistent leadership underpinned many of the failings we identified. Poor communication systems, the lack of co-ordinated team work and inconsistent staffing meant managers and those in charge were not always aware of what was happening in the home. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and found them open and approachable. People were familiar with the newly appointed manager and felt confident they could improve the quality of the service provided. Systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place but were not effective in identifying or addressing risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing or securing service improvements.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe. If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration. For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

During the inspection we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.  You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

 

 

Latest Additions: