You are here

Archived: Marion House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 August 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 28 and 30 June and 4 July 2016. Marion House is a small care home that provides accommodation and support for up to eight people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the home. The home is run by a Christian based organisation and predominantly accommodates individuals who are practising their faith.

Marion House has a registered manager. 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 house had a homely and friendly feel. Staff and people looked relaxed and staff supported people in an unhurried friendly and reassuring way. A family member told us, “My brother has been a resident of Marion House since 1987 and, nearly 30 years later, my sisters and I are as impressed with the service as we have ever been."

The people living in the home were settled and had established a community amongst themselves as they had lived at Marion House for a considerable period. One person had called Marion House their home for nearly 30 years and the newest person to move into the home had been there for over five years. There was also a strong, stable staff group.

People were safeguarded because staff had been trained in the protection of adults and knew what they needed to do in the event of a safeguarding concern. Medicines were managed safely to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The manager tried to ensure that staffing rotas were flexible to ensure that peoples wishes and activity preferences could be met. People confirmed that this was the case.

Staff told us they felt supported and could gain informal advice or guidance whenever they needed to. Staff were trained to make sure they were able to meet the individual needs of people living at the home.

Where people were able to make their own decisions staff sought their consent before they supported them. Where people may have lacked capacity to make a specific decision staff were acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care. Staff knew the people they were caring for and supporting, including their preferences and personal histories.

People had support plans that reflected their personal history, individual preferences and interests. Staff had read people’s support plans and used the information to make sure they helped the individual in the way they wanted or needed to be supported.

People had a keyworker. A key worker is a named member of staff that was responsible for ensuring people’s care needs were met. This included supporting them with activities and spending time with them.

The service had a positive, open, person-centred culture. Staff said they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager and were confident that they would be addressed. They were also aware of how to raise concerns and whistleblow with external agencies such as Care Quality Commission.

The manager regularly worked alongside staff which gave them an insight into how their staff cared for and supported people. It also enabled them to share good practice and assess people's staff's abilities and the quality of care and support that was being provided.

Quality assurance systems, developed by the provider, had been implemented within the service. This meant that there were satisfactory arrangements in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 August 2016

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded because staff recognised signs of abuse and understood the action they needed to take.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place that protected people whilst enabling them to participate in their daily activities.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 August 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were supported to understand their role, and how best to support people. All the staff we spoke with said they felt they had the right knowledge and skills to support people effectively.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals when they needed to.

People’s rights were protected because staff were acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 August 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring in their approach. People had good relationships with staff and freely approached them to ask for support, or to spend time with them.

People’s care plans described who and what was important to the individual and also contained information about people’s life story. This meant that staff were able to learn about people in order to better support them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People had care plans that provided staff with detailed guidance on how they wanted or needed to be supported.

People participated in a range of activities that they enjoyed. The registered manager planned the staff rotas to ensure people’s needs could be responded to in a flexible way.

There was an effective complaints system.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 August 2016

The service was well led.

People’s feedback was sought and acted upon.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to check the service for safety and quality.