Morton Cottage Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider improved the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them and their relatives. Staff understood people’s current needs and were mindful of potential changes.

People and their relatives were confident in the provider’s oversight of their needs. One relative told us, “We had a review of everything with the manager when [person] first came here.”

The provider used a range of recognised tools to help assess people’s needs and make changes if and when necessary. This helped to inform the provider’s level of response to the risk people faced.

External professionals expressed confidence in the effectiveness of care delivered at the service. One said, “Staff proactively seek advice, listen and take the advice on board.I have witnessed good teamwork and the seniors handover well.”

The provider ensured people receive care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The provider’s systems ensured that staff were up-to-date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

Leaders sought advice from external professionals when required. Where advice was given, this was accurately recorded and factored into people’s care plans. For instance, advice around how best to support a person with diabetes.

The provider ensured effective working across teams and shifts to support people. They made sure they shared people’s assessment of needs when they moved between different services. This made accessing other services more straightforward for people.

Health and social care partners felt the provider worked well with them to meet people's needs. The local GP practice and visiting nurses, including frailty specialists, were well known to the service and work collaboratively with shared goals. One professional said, “Yes, staff are always informed before we undertake our ward rounds or are knowledgeable about the request for a visit.If someone is unsure, they know who can help or is best placed to speak to.”

Staff worked well as a team, handing over important information efficiently. One staff member said, “We all chip in and do our bit. I think having someone to do the activities side of things helps us and residents.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, although did not always ensure people were able to maximise their independence, choice and control. Healthy living, through diet and exercise, was varied.

People were generally positive about the meals they enjoyed. One person said, “The food is good, I enjoy it, there is always a gallon of custard at the end and I go to bed when I like.” Another said, “Sometimes there’s a bit of a wait.”

Mealtimes we observed were at times not effectively managed. There was no clear accountability for who was to ensure the smooth running of mealtimes, and this led to confusion. There were some delays with meals. Some people had repetitive behaviours like taking other people’s drinks and plates, but staff did not always anticipate how these minor issues may escalate. There were no menus visible during the mealtime service we observed and people were not always given adequate opportunities to choose meals (for instance, being shown plates of food as options before choosing).

Activities had improved recently but there was still a lack of focus on giving people options to improve their physical and emotional wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records of key information like people’s weights, fluid intake, positional changes and mood were regularly documented on the provider’s electronic care records system.

External professionals gave examples of positive outcomes for people in terms of improvements to injuries and increased mobility. One said, “Staff proactively seek advice, listen and take the advice on board.”

Staff respected people’s independence and rights. People and families were involved in core decisions about their care.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.

Where there was a requirement to have a restrictive practice in place, for instance bed rails, the rationale for this was clearly recorded, as was the consideration of the person’s ability to make an informed decision, and the involvement of the people who knew them best.