Archived: Morell Lodge

Updated 8 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Morell Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered who was also the registered provider with the Care Quality Commission. This means they are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was carried out over three days; 17 December 2019 was unannounced, and 18 December 2019 and 9 January 2020 were announced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service from the local authority and the provider’s registration application. We also took into account the service’s last inspection report, prior to changing provider. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection-

We looked around Morell Lodge to check it was clean and a safe place for people to live. We spoke with six people who were living in the service, two relatives and a health professional about their experience of the care provided. We observed the care and support and interactions between people who used the service and staff. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with the nominated individual who is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider, the registered manager and five members of staff. This included the deputy manager, senior care and care staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including environmental risk assessments, fire and legionella reports, survey feedback and thank you text messages were also reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. This included training records.

Updated 8 February 2020

Morell Lodge is residential care home providing personal care for up to 16 people aged 65 and over, including people living with dementia. The service is situated in a quiet residential area and is close to the seafront and amenities. The premises is on two floors with each person having their own individual bedroom and communal areas are available within the service. At the time of our inspection, 13 people were living at Morell Lodge.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People, their relatives, professionals and staff, were all very positive about the improvements seen under the new provider. One relative said it has been, “Like Breath of fresh air, residents want for nothing.” A staff member told us the provider had, “Made such a vast improvement in a year.”

People told us they felt safe living at Morell Lodge. One person said, “I like it here.” Staff received safeguarding training and understood their responsibility in keeping people safe. Risk assessments were in place to ensure people’s health and welfare was not compromised, whilst promoting people to maintain their independence. Staff managed people’s medicines safely and kept the home clean and hygienic. People said there were enough staff to respond to their needs. The provider did not use a dependency tool to help assist them in calculating their staffing levels. We have made a recommendation to drive improvement in this area.

People’s needs were assessed prior to being offered a place at the service. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare, liaising with external healthcare professionals to access support in a timely manner. People told us they enjoyed the food and had access to snacks and drinks to support their nutritional needs. Staff received training and support to effectively carry out their role. There was a programme of ongoing redecoration and refurbishment which enhanced and personalised the environment. We have made a recommendation about the use of colour pallets, to drive improvement in this area.

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.

Management and staff enjoyed their work, and were highly motivated, kind and compassionate. People and their relatives praised the caring, friendly staff and said they would not hesitate to recommend the service to others. Staff knew people well and understood their preferred routines, likes and dislikes and what was important to them. They supported people to maintain links with those that mattered to them, and ensured their visitors felt comfortable visiting.

Care plans showed people were being consulted over their care. Staff encouraged people to join in and try new activities to promote their wellbeing. People knew who to talk to if they had any concerns or complaints and felt confident that any would be dealt with.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service people received; using feedback to continually develop and improve the service. One staff member told us the registered manager has, “Only been doing it [managing] a little while but is doing a good job.”

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 10 September 2018). Since this rating was awarded the registered provider of the service has changed. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on our timescale since the service was registered with the CQC.

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.