Morley Manor Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service, and the information was used to inform care plans. The registered manager explained how they considered people’s needs carefully, prior to agreeing a placement, to ensure they were compatible with other people, and their needs could be met. People and relatives gave positive feedback about their experiences of moving into the home. Comments included, “They explained everything to me when I moved in and told me this is my home.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service supported people in line with legislation and used current evidence based good practice effectively. Care records provided evidence to show good practice guidance was followed in areas such as nutrition, hydration and skin integrity.

People and relatives gave good feedback about the food. Comments included, “The food is very good; there is variety and choice.” We observed people were offered regular drinks and snacks of their choosing and the dining experience was relaxed and sociable.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

There was evidence of good team working within the service and with external partners. There were effective links with families and other health and social care professionals. Staff felt supported, valued and included in the day to day running of the home. Feedback from professionals working with the service was positive. Comments included, “The team are amazing and are so caring and compassionate.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to specialist support and professional advice was used to inform care plans. Records showed involvement from other professionals including district nurses, occupational therapists and speech and language teams. Where people’s needs changed referrals were made promptly. There was a weekly ward round which meant people could choose to see a health care professional face to face regularly.

Staff actively promoted people’s health and wellbeing with a range of activities, including access to the community. We observed an interactive session, where people visibly enjoyed participating in gentle exercises at a level that suited them.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Processes were in place to evidence people’s care and support was monitored. For example, where required, people’s weights and their nutrition and hydration intake was checked and monitored. We identified some gaps in repositioning charts. We did not find any impact from this. The shortfalls had also been identified in provider audits and action had been taken to ensure more enhanced checks were carried out.

Staff understood the importance of monitoring people’s care. Comments included, “This is important to know people are getting safe care and to be able to keep checks on people’s health.”

Relatives told us about examples where outcomes for people had improved, which enhanced their lives. For example, one person had been supported and encouraged to gain weight which had improved their mobility and overall wellbeing.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Processes were in place to assess people’s mental capacity. There was evidence the provider had worked closely with people to discuss and seek consent in relation to the use of restrictive equipment, such as sensor mats. We found some examples where processes had not been fully followed. For example, one person had bedrails in place. This had been risk assessed but there had not been a full best interest assessment. We discussed this with the registered manager, and we were assured they would take action.

We received very positive feedback from people about the support they received from staff. People were routinely offered choice and control over how they wanted to live their lives. Comments included, “We have fun here. You can have anything you want, and they respect your choices.”