Archived: Morley House

During this inspection we looked at the arrangements being made for checking health and safety and managing risks within the environment. This helped us to answer the question 'Is the service safe?'

At the previous inspection of Morley House in May 2014 we found the provider was not operating an effective system for managing risks to people's health and safety. Improvements were needed and we visited Morley House again to check on the action that had been taken. Below is a summary of what we found. Please read the full report if you want to see the evidence supporting our summary.

Is the service safe:

The safety of the service for people at the home had improved since our last inspection. People were better protected because risks were managed more effectively.

Health and safety in the home were checked regularly to ensure that any shortcomings were identified and followed up in a timely way.

Below is a summary of what we found. This is based on our visit to the home when we met with the people who used the service and with members of the staff and management team. Please read the full report if you want to see the evidence supporting our summary.

Is the service safe?

Recruitment practice was safe with a thorough procedure in place. This helped to ensure that the staff were suitable to be working with the people who used the service.

Systems were in place for ensuring that the home provided a safe environment for people. However, maintenance works had been taking place at the home and there were shortcomings in how the risks relating to these were being managed and reduced to promote people's safety.

Is the service effective?

The people we spoke with said that their needs were being met. People were supported in ways which promoted their independence. They told us they were able to do things that were important to them, such as seeing their family and being involved in a local church.

Staff liaised with healthcare specialists outside the home so that people received the support they needed with their physical and mental health.

Is the service caring?

The relationships between staff and the people who used the service appeared to be friendly and positive. People we met with said that they felt able to talk with staff if they were unhappy about something.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and their duty of care to people. They knew the procedures to follow if they had any concerns about people's care and welfare

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to express their views about the service they received. This included having the opportunity to meet with applicants for support worker roles and giving feedback as part of the selection process.

Staff, in the role of key worker, reviewed people's health and welfare with them on a regular basis. This meant that support could be provided which reflected people's current needs.

Is the service well led?

A new manager had recently been appointed and they were successful in their application for registration with the Commission. Arrangements were being made for quality assurance and for improving the service. These included regularly visits by a senior manager to monitor standards in the home. This helped to ensure that action was taken to develop the service and make improvements when needed. Some checks however were not being undertaken in a consistent and thorough way. This created a risk to people's safety and welfare.

During our visit on 18 September 2013 we found that changes had been made. Records were no longer being stored and used in the communal areas. A new filing cabinet had been obtained for the home's office, where the records could be kept securely. Staff told us that the new arrangements were working well and they were now using the office when completing people's care records.

Not everyone was able to express their views about the care and support that they received. We spoke to staff, observed arrangements in the home and spent time with the people who used the service. Staff were aware of people's health needs and took action to ensure that these were being met. For example, on the day we visited one person had received support with going to the dentist. We found however that people were not always being supported in a person centred way which protected their rights.

We saw that people's records were not being kept securely. Staff understood the need for confidentiality, although this was not reflected in the way that the records were kept. The communal areas of the home were used for record keeping and storage which highlighted some institutional type practices.

People told us that they liked the changes that had been made to the kitchen since our last inspection. We saw that the kitchen and some other domestic areas had been refurbished, which meant that they were easier to keep clean. However standards of hygiene varied and cleaning schedules were not being consistently completed.

At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at Morley House, and comments we received were positive. People we spoke with, who could tell us of their experience said they were happy living at Morley House. Comments included, 'I like living here, staff help me', 'I'm good at cooking', 'I like singing I have a lovely voice', 'I go to college'.

One person was also able to tell us how they were supported to attend a local church and how they enjoyed serving at the altar. Another person told us if they were unhappy they knew how to make a complaint. This person told us picture information was available to help them. Three people also told us how they were involved in their care planning.

We spoke with four members of staff who told us they felt they delivered a high standard of care to people and were well supported and trained by the management team and the organisation.

People appeared relaxed in their own environment and around the staff members. People were observed being supported to prepare the evening meal, and were fully involved in deciding what to cook. Throughout our visit people were observed making their own drinks and snacks. Support was given where required.