Archived: Mornington House

Mornington House is a small care home registered to support people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder which can accommodate up to 8 adults. There were 7 people accommodated at the home at the time of the inspection.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Risk assessments and care home visiting forms were completed prior to entry.

• National guidance around coronavirus had been implemented. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was used effectively to safeguard staff and people using the service. We observed clear signage reminding people about the need to wash their hands and information on donning and doffing PPE effectively. A designated area at the rear entrance of the home had been created to enable staff and visitors access to PPE and there was adequate ventilation within the home. Staff received specific training on how to keep people safe from the risk of infection and had received clinical skills training.

• Although local restrictions were in place at the time of the inspection, alternative measures such as video calls and phone calls were utilised to update and maintain contact with family and friends.

• The provider complied with shielding and social distancing rules. Visits to families had been individually risk assessed thoroughly to manage the impact of the restrictions on people's well being.

• We observed the home looked clean and hygienic. We viewed cleaning schedules and were made aware that high touch areas such as handles, and switches received additional cleaning daily. Environmental, coronavirus and infection control policies and procedures were in place to ensure infection prevention procedures were robust.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At the time of the inspection there were 8 people receiving a service. The service refers to people who use the service as “service users” so we will refer to them as such throughout this report.

There was an appropriate safeguarding policy and procedure in place and staff had received training and were clear about their roles when asked about this during the inspection visit.

Staff were recruited through a robust procedure and there was a settled team in place with a low turnover of staff.

Medication was administered safely with clear systems and procedures in place. Service users were encouraged to manage their own medication where appropriate and this was monitored and reviewed to ensure that it was appropriate.

Service user’s care and support needs had been thoroughly assessed. Care plans demonstrated the service user’s involvement and were written in line with their needs and this was acknowledged by the service users that we spoke with during the inspection visit. The service was flexible and care plans could be altered to suit the persons changing needs.

The service was working within the legal requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Service Users were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives with the right balance between empowerment and protection.

Service users told us the staff team were kind and friendly and that they were involved in the planning of their care and support and in reviews about this.

The service produced a welcome pack which included information about the service.

There was a human rights policy in place and service users reported being treated with dignity and respect and this was also observed as being integral to the service during the inspection.

Service users were supported to follow their interests and hobbies, both in the home and in the community. This was evident in both the care plans and what service users told us.

There was a relevant complaints procedure that was accessible. There had been no recent complaints. The service had received a number of compliments from service users and their families.

There was a strong management structure in place that was visible and accessible. Staff felt supported by the management team and reported a high level of job satisfaction. Staff supervisions and meetings were held on a regular basis and encouraged an open learning culture.

Service user feedback was sought regularly including before every service user meeting.

Audits and quality checks were undertaken on a regular basis and any issues or concerns addressed with appropriate actions.

The service was committed to partnership working and is involved in local groups where best practice and learning are shared between providers in the local area.

We received an action plan with details of how the provider was going to meet the areas of non-compliance. During this inspection we found that the provider had met the areas of non-compliance from the previous inspection in September 2013.

We observed some people as they returned to the home for a brief period . We saw that the people using the service looked happy and well cared for. We saw friendly and caring interactions between the staff and the people using the service.

We spoke with one person who was living at the home. He told us the staff treated him well and he enjoyed the environment and living with the other people. He confirmed he was involved in his care planning process and that he had no complaints. He told us 'If I ever need to raise anything, I speak with the staff who sort it out.'