Morton Cottage Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This key question was previously rated good. This key question remains good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders and staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. One relative said, “My [relative] is very happy there. The staff are always great with her and treat her and others as if they were their own family, whether that’s having a bit of a natter or a hug and support when upset.”

We observed genuinely caring interactions throughout our inspection. Staff were patient and demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s personalities. The service’s stable staff team meant people received a good continuity of care from people they recognised and trusted.

The provider ensured external colleagues from other organisations were treated with respect.

Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural backgrounds and protected characteristics. People and their families told us that staff always treated them as individuals. One relative said, “Staff really seem to take time to build relationships with the residents which is evident when we visit.” One person said, “They always ask if there’s anything else they can do for me.”
Electronic care plans were kept updated with information relevant to people’s individualities and preferences. People were dressed neatly in their own style, with accessories such as watches and handbags.

Staff were always respectful of the things that made people unique and were mindful of these throughout the inspection.
 

The provider did not always do everything practicable to promote people’s independence. This meant people weren’t always sure of their rights and choices regarding their care, treatment and wellbeing. For instance, choices were not made clear at mealtimes. People were not always prompted to choose their own mobility equipment, meaning they at times struggled to move around the home. The environment sometimes made it more difficult for people to orientate themselves. For instance, signage needed significant improvement. People’s doors were all a dark brown with no identifying pictures or names on them. There was one clock in a dining area but no others to give people a sense of time and place. The provider acknowledged there needed to be a range of improvements in the environment to help people’s independence.

People and relatives told us they felt listened to and included but the provider needed to do more to make sure people’s independence formed part of how the service was run.

People were supported to maintain relationships important to them. For instance, relatives could visit at all times. One told us, “We can come in any time, and they let us know if anything is wrong. The children and dog come in to visit, no problems.”

Care plans had been updated to ensure they contained a range of pertinent information needed to support people and to respect their strengths and limitations.

The provider did not always effectively listen to and understand people’s changing needs in the moment. Staff responses were sometimes reactive rather than part of a clear strategy to support people living with a dementia or experiencing distress.

For instance, we observed interactions between two residents escalating. Staff did not always have clear de-escalation strategies to rely on, and care plans did not always contain this level of detail to help them.

Mealtimes were similarly in need of better oversight and leadership. At times staff responded well to people’s needs but at other times throughout the day people were left alone for periods of time without staff checking what help or other options they may need.

Complaints were few and there were processes in place to review and respond to such concerns.

People and their relatives were positive about staff supporting them when they needed. One relative said, “They speak politely and calmy whenever we’re there. They really do understand [person’s] ups and downs.”

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and other leaders. Supervisions did not always happen as often as the provider’s policies set out, but staff felt they were well supported. One staff member told us, “Supervisions are every 2 to 3 months roughly and I feel like that's sufficient to discuss anything needed.”

There was a stable group of experienced care staff, alongside newer staff. They displayed positive teamworking and supported each other.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures in place to support staff wellbeing.