We carried out a review of the data available to us about Morton House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Morton House, you can give feedback on this service.
Morton house is run by the Epilepsy Society. It is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to fourteen people. At the time of the inspection twelve people were living there.
Morton house accommodates fourteen people in one adapted building. People have their own bedrooms but share the communal bathrooms and showers. The service has a separate kitchen, dining area, sitting room and laundry room. The bedrooms are set over the ground and first floor. The bedrooms on the first floor can be accessed by a lift.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 14 people. Twelve people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs (apart from the house name), intercom, cameras or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were happy with their care and felt safe. They had positive relationships with staff and got the support they required. Relatives felt confident people received safe care. They described the care as “Excellent and fantastic”. A relative commented “We are very mindful and grateful for the care [family members name] gets. If only all people with similar needs could be so lucky”. Another relative commented "We cannot thank everybody at Morton House enough for the care that [family members name] has received for all the years they have spent there. They consider it to be their home, is contented and happy and feels free to ask for anything they need or want".
Safe medicine practices were not consistently promoted. The issues identified were addressed during the inspection. We have made a recommendation for the provider to effectively monitor to ensure they are working to best practice in relation to medicine administration.
Systems were in place to safeguard people and risks to them were identified and mitigated. Accident and incidents were recorded and reviewed to promote learning and prevent reoccurrence.The home was free from odour and had a homely feel to it. However, the home was outdated and no longer suitable for people’s needs. The provider confirmed a refurbishment plan was in place with work scheduled to commence at the end of February 2020, to improve the service.
Systems were in place to audit the service. Actions from audits were not routinely signed off as completed. The registered manager agreed to do that to evidence the progress.
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. People’s health and nutritional needs were identified, and they had access to other health professionals to promote their health, well- being and safety.
Staff were suitably recruited, although volunteers did not have all of the required records in place. The nominated individual agreed to address this. The service had an established staff team and continuity of care was provided. Staff were inducted and trained. Staff felt well supported but regular one to one supervision was not taking place. This had been identified by the service and was being addressed.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. Staff were observed to be kind, caring and had a good knowledge of people which enabled them to provide person centred care to people. They promoted people’s privacy, dignity and encouraged their independence. People were provided with equipment to promote their independence.
People had person centred care plans in place which were kept under review and updated. People’s communication needs were identified, and their end of life wishes explored. Some activities were provided, and people choose whether to get involved in them or not. Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to raise concerns.
The service had an experienced manager. They supported staff on shift and empowered the staff team to develop and learn. Staff felt valued and worked well as a team to benefit people. People and their relatives were complimentary of the registered manager. A relative commented " The“[Registered manager name] is magic, he is absolutely dedicated and committed to the people living there".
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last
The last rating for this service was good (28 June 2017) .
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in May 2015, the service was rated good.
At this inspection we found the service remained good.
Why the service is rated good:
People and their relatives were happy with the care provided. They felt the home provided good care to people as a result of having established, experienced and caring staff who were supported by a dedicated manager. Professionals felt the home worked well with them.
Systems were in place to keep people safe. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise these risks. Peoples’ medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff were suitably recruited. Staffing levels were not sufficient to meet people’s needs. This was being addressed by the registered manager. Confirmation was received following the inspection that the staffing levels in the morning shift had increased to ensure people’s needs could be met in a timely manner.
Staff were inducted, trained and supported in their roles. Formal one to one supervisions and annual appraisals of staff were taking place but not in line with the organisations policy. This had been identified by the manager and was being addressed. People’s health and nutritional needs were met. Areas of the home had been refurbished and the organisation was considering how the environment could be improved to meet people’s changing needs. Quotes were being obtained to source specific moving and handling equipment, to ensure people’s safety.
People were actively involved in making choices and decisions about their care, treatment and issues which affected them as a group. Care, treatment and support plans were personalised. People’s needs were reviewed regularly and as required. Person centred activities were provided. People and their relatives were able to raise concerns and felt confident they would be addressed.
Staff were described as kind, caring, engaging and sociable. The home had an established staff team who knew people well. They treated people as individuals and showed them respect. They promoted people’s privacy, dignity and created a warm homely relaxed environment for people.
The home had an experienced manager who had developed a cohesive staff team that worked well together. The manager was actively involved in the day to day running of the home as well as being proactive in identifying and addressing issues with the organisation such as staffing levels and the environment. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home.
Morton House is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people with epilepsy, learning and/or physical disabilities.
At the time of our inspection there were thirteen people living in the home. There was a registered manager 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.
The inspection took place on the 5 and 6 May 2015. The inspection was unannounced. We spoke with seven people living at the home and six staff which included the registered manager. We spoke with five relatives by telephone after the inspection.
People told us they felt safe. Relatives were confident that their relatives were safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people and policies were in place to promote safe practices.
People who used the service and relatives were happy with the care provided. Relatives described the care as fantastic and the best care you could possibly have. They felt their relatives were happy there and one relative commented “It is like one big family”.
Risks to people, staff and visitors were identified and managed. Medicines were safely managed. Care plans were in place which provided guidance for staff on how people were to be supported. We saw people were supported appropriately.
Safe recruitment procedures were in operation. Staff were suitably inducted, trained and supervised to ensure they were effective in meeting people’s needs. The home had an established staff team who worked well together to benefit people. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and provided person centred care. Safe staffing levels were maintained and the rota was flexible to accommodate appointments and activities. We saw staff were kind, caring and responsive to people’s needs
People’s independence was promoted and they were provided with the information to enable them to make choices and decisions.
People’s health needs were met and they were provided with varied well balanced appetising meals. They had access to a range of activities.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the home and gain feedback from people who used the service and their relatives.
People, staff and relatives told us the home was well managed. They were happy with the way the home was run and found the registered manager to be accessible and approachable. One relative commented “The registered manager is incredibly approachable, they are reassuring and provides them with confidence that their relative is well looked after”. The registered manager took an active role in the day to day running of the home. They provided hands on care as well as providing guidance and support to staff.
We received feedback from three health professionals involved with the home. They confirmed people got safe, effective care. They told us staff were caring, responsive and the service was well managed.
People told us that they were involved in the planning of their care and understood the care and treatment choices available to them. One person said 'I always have my hair done once a week and the staff let me book the hairdresser on my own. I have all the appointments booked until Christmas because having my hair nice makes me feel good.' The care plans reflect people's choices and involvement in their care.
One relative told us 'the carers are fantastic and supported our relative and us when our relative was in hospital.'
The home was clean and peoples rooms were all individualised reflecting their choices. One room was covered in a person's favourite football colours. The cleaning schedule was comprehensive and all staff took responsibility to check standards. A staff member described the management and support of a recent infection incident demonstrating a good understanding of infection control.
People who used the service spoke highly of the choice and quality of the food. The chef took great pride in the cleanliness of the kitchen and the design of the menu.
People who used services were involved in their medicine regime. Individual medicine lockers were in each bedroom. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and this was confirmed through training records and observation.
People who used services were consulted on their views and suggestions to improve services. The staff were consulted in the provision of services in adverse weather conditions to ensure a good level of staff cover. The management team were including outside expertise to help develop their service.
Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. We saw individualised risks relating to the person had been identified and these risks had been reviewed by the manager on a monthly basis. People who we spoke with described the care as "good", "very good" and "fantastic".
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People using the service told us that they felt safe at the home and said if there were any concerns they would report to the care staff or the manager.
The three people we spoke with told us that staff had the skills and knowledge to support them effectively. People told us that they would contact the manager or care staff if they had any complaints to make. Comments included "I have not had the need to complain" and "the staff are marvellous, I have no reason to complain."
People told us that they have good access to a range of leisure activities and holidays. They thought that the meals were good and they were given enough to eat.
They confirmed that they were given two choices each meal and were involved in the menu planning.
People told us that the home was kept clean and that staff helped them keep their bedrooms clean. They told us that they liked living there. They also said that staff gave them their medication. They thought there was always enough staff available to support them. They said that house meetings took place which allowed them to raise issues that concerned them. They told us that they knew who to talk to if any person treated them badly. They told us they knew how to make a complaint and that issues raised were dealt with.