You are here

Archived: Marion House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 June 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 1 October 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We spoke with four people who lived in the home and three members of staff. We pathway tracked three people,this involved looking at their care and medication records, and when possible speaking with the person or staff supporting them. We assessed how medicines were handled and stored at the home.

People we spoke with considered their needs were met. Care plan which detailed how people would like support to be provided and actions needed to minimise any risk to them.

There were safe systems in place for managing medicines in the home. Audits were undertaken regularly to ensure people received medicines appropriately.

People were supported by a staff team who had received appropriate training and supervision. Competency assessments for areas such as medications had been carried out prior to a member of staff handling medicines.

The provider had suitable systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provision. This included gathering the views of people who live in the home.

Records required for the running of the home were maintained, up to date and accurate. There were suitable lockable storage facilities for records and passwords if records were held electronically.

Inspection carried out on 27 November and 5 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People living in the home were able to choose how they spent their time and what activities they wished to participate in. Staff addressed individuals by their preferred name and supported people to maintain their independence.

People and their families had been involved in assessments of needs and developing their care plans. Care plans we examined were person centred and individualised. Records included information about how people preferred to communicate, such as using signs or pictures. There were a range of activities that individuals could participate in, such as shopping, attendance at church and swimming. People were able to maintain their independence, risk assessments were in place to ensure they were safe for example when walking to the shops.

There were suitable safeguarding procedures and practice in place that ensured people were protected from harm.

People were supported by suitable numbers of experienced and qualified staff. We noted that staffing levels were flexible and influenced by activities people wanted to do. Staff confirmed that they had received training appropriate for their roles and were received supervision.

The home had suitable quality monitoring systems in place. People living in the home and their representatives were consulted about the running of the home. Any areas suggested for improvement were acted upon.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)