Archived: Morovahview Residential Home

The service provides care for up to sixteen people. At the time of the inspection thirteen people were receiving care at Morovahview. Some of the people who lived at the service needed care and support due to dementia, sensory and /or physical disabilities. 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.

Morovahview is situated close to the centre of Hayle. It is a detached property in a residential area of the town. There are two floors with the upper being reached by stairs and a stair lift. All room are single. There are two shared bathrooms and shared toilets. Shared living areas include one lounge with adjoining conservatory, a dining room and patio seating area. There were a range of aids and adaptations to support people with limited mobility.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had received an application from the current manager to register with the commission in order to meet the requirements of its registration to have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 atmosphere in the service on the day of the inspection was relaxed, friendly and calm. Staff responded promptly when people asked for help and support was provided at a relaxed pace. Throughout our inspection we observed staff providing support with respect and kindness. People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at Morovahview Care Home. Comments included, “It’s the best move I made. Love living here because I get all the care I need from lovely staff,” “If I need staff they answer my call bell very quickly. I feel very safe” and “I have everything I need here and it makes me feel safe and as if I belong here.”

Detailed care planning and review meant that people’s risks were being managed effectively to ensure they were safe. Risks were clearly identified and included guidance for staff on the actions they should take to minimise any risk of harm. In particular risks in relation to people’s skin care and nutrition were being effectively monitored. Records reported on changes in people’s level of risk and how those risks were going to be managed.

Care records were personalised to the individual and detailed how people wished to be supported. They provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective care and support.

The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide the level of support people required. The manager also supported staff when necessary. Some staff told us they felt another staff member at the busiest times in the morning and evening would mean they were not as rushed. We shared this with the manager. They told us they constantly reviewed staffing levels against the needs of people using the service and that the current levels had been assessed as suitable to meet people’s individual needs. There was no evidence that call bells were delayed in response, or that a higher number of accidents and incidents were occurring at specific times of the day or night to demonstrate staffing levels were not adequate. People told us and we observed staff were responsive and available when they needed them.

Staff were sufficiently skilled to meet people’s needs. Necessary pre-employment checks had been completed and there were systems in place to provide new staff with appropriate induction training. Existing staff received regular training, supervision and annual performance appraisals.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and act on any allegations of abuse.

The manager used effective systems to record and audit accidents and incidents. Action was taken to mitigate those risks from occurring again. There was a culture of openness and honesty and staff felt able to raise concerns or suggestions.

The service was well maintained. It was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Capacity assessments had been carried out. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly. There were no restrictions authorised at the time of the inspection.

Meals were appetising and people were offered a choice in line with their dietary requirements and preferences. Where necessary staff monitored what people ate to help ensure they stayed healthy.

There was a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the service and their relatives. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

The manager had recently introduced a comprehensive system to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This included consistent regular audits of all care and support as well as operational issues. The manager set up systems to engage with people as well as external professionals. People’s views were positive about how the service operated. Staff told us, “There have been some changes but the manager talks with us all the time” and “We [staff] feel there could be more staff to help at the busiest times but we are talking with the manager about it.”

People were able to take part in activities supported by staff and external entertainers. These included, singing sessions, music entertainers, bingo, pamper sessions and visiting therapeutic animals from a local farm.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

We inspected Morovahview Residential Home on 14 and 20 June 2016. The inspection was unannounced. The service was last inspected in October 2013 when it was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations.

People told us they felt safe at the service and with the staff who supported them. People told us, “I feel safe,” and a relative told us “The home is safe and secure…I have never seen any blocked doorways or corridors.”

People told us they received their medicines on time. Medicines were well organised, records kept to a good standard, and staff had received suitable training to administer medicines.

Staff told us they had confidence that management would take any allegations of abuse seriously, and subsequently take suitable action. Staff had been trained to recognise potential signs of abuse.

Staff had received training to provide care and support to people. Training included moving and handling, first aid and dementia. Most staff had obtained a National Vocational Qualification, or diploma in care. Staff received regular supervision, from managers, to support them, and help develop their care practice.

Personnel files contained information, such as written references and an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, to ensure staff were deemed as suitable people to work with elderly people. Suitable recruitment processes, such as the completion of an application form, and a formal interviewing process were in place.

The service had appropriate links with medical services such as general practitioners, dentists, chiropodists and opticians. The owners of the service said these services were supportive, and people said they received enough support from these professionals.

People told us there were enough staff on duty, and people said they received timely support from staff when it was needed. Call bells were answered promptly and we observed staff being attentive to people’s needs.

There were activities available for people. A volunteer visited the service three days a week to help with activities such as board games, skittles and spending one to one time with people in their rooms. Some external entertainers such as musicians and singers visited.

Care records provided suitable information such as a care plan, daily records and risk assessments. Care plans were regularly reviewed. The service had appropriate systems in place to assess people’s capacity in line with legislation and guidance, for example using the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People told us they were very happy with their meals and always had enough to eat and drink. Comments received about the meals included “It is lovely,” and “Very good.” People said they had a choice and received enough support when they needed help with eating or drinking.

People remarked if they had any concerns or complaints they would feel confident discussing these with staff members or management, or they would ask their relative to resolve the problem. They were sure the correct action would be taken if they made a complaint.

People felt the service was well managed. We were told “The owners are lovely,” and “The owners are friendly, supportive and attentive,” to people’s needs. There were suitable systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Everyone we spoke with was happy with the home's standards. The comments we received included 'staff are very helpful, very kind..nothing is too much trouble,' I get looked after very well,' 'It is lovely, the staff are nice and the food is good,' 'You could not find anywhere better,' and 'beautiful'.it could not be better.'

We judged that people who used the service were treated with respect and dignity and there were satisfactory levels of activities available. People received appropriate support with their personal care and health needs. The accommodation was well furnished, decorated and maintained to a high standard. The home was very clean and there were no offensive odours. The medication system was well organised and operated effectively. There were satisfactory numbers of staff on duty. The service had a suitable quality assurance system to ascertain the views of people, and to ensure standards were maintained and improved where necessary.

People told us they felt they had enough to do to keep occupied, they confirmed there were activities provided and they could choose whether to participate or not.

During our inspection, we found people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights, people were protected against abuse because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place and staff were well supported and trained.