• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Mrs Mollie Green - 23 Parliament Street

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 Parliament Street, Morecambe, Lancashire, LA3 1RQ (01524) 414353

Provided and run by:
Mrs Mollie Green

All Inspections

18 January 2018

During a routine inspection

Mrs Mollie Green 23 Parliament Street is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to four people living with mental health conditions. The home has two communal living areas and a dining area. At the time of the inspection visit there were three people residing at the home. People were cared for by a small family unit who provided live in support within the home.

Mrs Mollie Green 23 Parliament Street is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing care as single under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and care provided. We looked at both during this inspection.

At this inspection visit carried out on 18 January 2018 we found the service remained Good and met the all relevant fundamental standards. We found the registered provider continued to provide a good standard of care to people who lived at the home.

People who lived at the home were independent and could attend to their own care needs with minimum supervision. We saw that independence was promoted wherever possible at all times.

Staff told us they had known people who lived at the home for a considerable number of years prior to becoming paid employees. They said this contributed to positive relationships being developed and enabled person centred care to be delivered and achieved.

People who lived at the home told us they felt safe and secure whilst living at the home. Staffing was flexible and familiar staff could be called upon when people required assistance with additional unplanned support needs. People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the staffing levels.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse and harassment. The registered provider had developed a person centred approach to risk. Risks were assessed and safety of people was monitored by staff on an ongoing basis.

People who lived at the home told us they were treated with kindness and respect. We observed support being delivered in a sensitive and timely manner. Privacy and dignity was routinely considered by staff.

We reviewed medicines administration and documentation and found this to be safe. People’s skills were taken into consideration and independence was promoted when people were assessed as having the necessary skills to manage their own medicines.

People were encouraged to live active lives. There was a focus on promoting healthy lives through exercise and healthy eating. Cultural needs were identified and addressed by the registered provider. Relationships were encouraged and supported.

We saw evidence of multi-agency working to promote effective care. Health needs were identified and managed with support from staff who worked at the home. We saw evidence of good practice guidelines being referred to when supporting people with specific mental health conditions.

People who lived at the home told us the quality and availability of food was good. People were offered choices to meet their preferences and dietary needs.

We carried out a visual inspection of the home and found it was clean, tidy and appropriately maintained.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Consent to care and treatment was routinely sought.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service and had no formal complaints. During the inspection visit one person commented on how the service could improve. We saw action was taken immediately by the registered manager to ensure improvements were put into place straight away. People were encouraged to discuss and raise any concerns with a member of the staff team on an individual basis.

People who lived at the home told us the service was well led. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the registered manager. The registered manager understood the importance of their role and offered advice and guidance to staff working at the home to ensure safe and effective care and support was provided.

People we spoke with and relatives were happy with the service being provided and spoke fondly of the staff team and the registered manager. There was no formal internal quality assurance in place but informal checks were made routinely by all members of the staff team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

24 August 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 August 2015.

23 Parliament Street is a three storey terraced house, situated in Morecambe. Local shops and the Morecambe sea front are a short walk away. In the main, the home provides non-personal care, emotional support and guidance in a family type environment for adults with mental health conditions. The home is registered for four people and provides accommodation and recreational activities for people living at the home.

The service was last inspected 27 August 2013. We identified no concerns at this inspection and found the provider was meeting all standards we assessed.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

People who lived at the home were independent and could attend to their own care needs with minimum supervision. Support was provided by the registered manager and other employees (who were also related to the registered manager).

Suitable arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. People told us they felt safe living at the home. The provider had appropriate risk management plans in place to promote independence but also keep people safe.

We found the registered manager had suitable arrangements in place for managing medicines. Medicines were safely kept and appropriate arrangements for administering them were in place.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and there was an emphasis upon health promotion. People’s health needs were met as people were supported by staff who knew them well.

People were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. There was a focus upon home cooking. Regular snacks and drinks were available to people between meals.

Care was provided in a person centred way. People who lived at the home were routinely involved in their own care planning. The provider kept up to date comprehensive records for each person.

The registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

People had freedom of movement around the building. They were involved in decision making about their personal care needs and the running of the home. We saw no restrictions on people’s liberty during our visit.

People who lived at the home were happy with the service being provided and spoke fondly of the staff team and the manager. There was no formal internal quality assurance in place but informal checks were made routinely.

8 July 2014

During a routine inspection

This is a small home and care is provided by the owner as part of an extended family environment. On the day of our visit we spoke with the owner and people living at the home. They helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people living at the home and from looking at records. We also had responses from external agencies including social services .This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced living at Mrs Mollie Greens Care Home.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. They told us they were receiving safe and appropriate care which was meeting their needs. They said staff were good and kind.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act relating to people living in residential care. People living at Mrs Mollie Greens, had the capacity to make decisions about their lives and were given appropriate information. The provider was aware of the need to seek assistance if an individual's capacity changed. This enabled them to assess peoples' mental capacity should there be concerns about their ability to make decisions for themselves.

Service contracts were in place confirming the building was maintained and a safe place for people to live.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and reviewed with them. We saw evidence they were involved in developing their plans of care. This included the way each person's care was provided, their daily routines, health needs and their hopes and aspirations. We saw that care plans were up to date and reflected people's current individual, dietary, cultural and religious needs.

People confirmed they were able to see people in private and friends and relatives could visit whenever they wished. People's needs were taken into account with the layout of the home enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, attentive and informed staff. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement and guidance when supporting people. Good care practices were observed. People told us that they were happy at Mrs Mollie Greens and they liked living there.

Care plans were person centred had been maintained, recording the care and support people were receiving. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw people received regular health checks with their General Practitioner, dentist and optician. In addition people had regular access to other agencies including social services and health professionals. The evidence we saw confirmed people were receiving support from a range of services and were able to respond to emergency situations if necessary.

Some people living at the home were able to live an independent lifestyle with support from the provider. Three of the four people living there were out in the community on her own at the time of the inspection. Two people called back in and told us they were happy living at the care home. Comments included, 'I have everything I need here and go out when I choose'. Another told us, 'Like it here, it's great'.

Is the service well-led?

This is a small family run home, therefore the owner had a range of informal systems in place in to monitor the quality of the care and support being provided. This included regular contact from social workers and other health professionals. This helped to ensure people received a high standard of care at all times.

27 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During the course of our visit we spoke individually with the deputy manager and the three people that were currently living at 23 Parliament Street. People spoke positively of the care and support they received and the family like atmosphere that was valued. One person said, 'Its good here the people are fine'. Another person told us, 'It's alright here, it is fine here'. A third person said, 'The foods good, the staff are fine and it is comfortable, is there anything else that you want to know'.

We saw that care had been taken to develop meaningful and relevant care plans. This included the views and opinions of the person the care plan related to. People told us that the detail in their care plan reflected their current wants, needs and wishes. One person told us that he would have no hesitation in speaking out if he felt his care plan needed to be amended and felt confident that this would be considered.

We asked one person if staff helped them properly, we were told, 'Yes they do'. Another person said that the staff that supported him always listened to what he had to say and helped him to achieve his aim. People also told us that they were supported to enjoy a wide range of individual interests.

19 December 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit two people were living at the home. These two people had lived at 23 Parliament Street for a considerable number of years.

We spoke with one person in private who told us that 'Everything is going alright. Molly (Registered Manager) looks after us very well. I like living here it is a good place to live. They feed me well and I am well looked after. It's nice to live round here'. This person had no concerns what so ever about living at the home.

The second person chose to get up late and conversation was brief. However this person appeared very comfortable and relaxed in his surroundings.

2 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the three people living at 23 Parliament Street however the conversation was brief. One of these people also elected to speak with us individually with the registered manager present. Again the conversation was limited. However this person did tell us the he enjoyed living at the home, he was free to do what he wanted, when he wanted and liked meeting people and enjoyed activities in the community.

The three people spoken with told us that they were happy with the care and support provided at the home.

When asked, one person we spoke with said he felt safe and comfortable living at the home.