Archived: Marling Court

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

Is the service safe?

During our visit we saw that people were treated with dignity and respect by staff. People did not directly tell us that they felt safe using the service. They did say that staff treated them well and were kind and attentive. This reflected the care practices that we saw. Any areas of concern specific to individual people were recorded in the sample of seven care plans we looked at.

There were systems and procedures that enabled the manager and staff to learn from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people, helped improve the service and the compliance actions made at the previous inspection were met at the current one.

The home had policies and procedures that worked in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Training was provided for relevant staff to understand when an assessment was required and application needed to be submitted. This meant that people were safeguarded.

The home was safe, clean and hygienic with well-maintained equipment that was regularly serviced. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk.

People's care needs were taken into account within the staff rotas when making decisions regarding the required staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience. Staff received suitable supervision and support that enabled people's needs to be met.

No staff were currently subject to disciplinary action and policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

The home enabled and supported people to contribute to their care plans if they wished to. Any individual specialist input required was identified in the care plans. Some of the seven support plans we saw contained evidence that people had contributed to them and they confirmed this when we spoke with them. People and their relatives told us "Staff are very helpful" and "I've never had a problem here".

The layout of the service enabled people to move around freely and safely.

The visiting policy and visitors' book demonstrated that people were able to see their visitors in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by attentive, friendly, kind and caring staff. The staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person commented, "It's friendly and the carers are very helpful'. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded in their care plans and care and support was provided in accordance with this information. This included the type of activities people enjoyed.

People and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities at home and within the local community. During our visit people some people went on a trip to the seaside whilst others were engaged in a number of individual and group activities. People's care plans identified how they were enabled to be involved in activities they had chosen and daily notes confirmed they had taken part.

People said that any concerns raised during the monthly home meetings or at other times were addressed.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the manager and staff listened to people's needs, opinions and acted upon them. One person told us "There are enough activities and I'm quite satisfied". The home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up way. This was demonstrated by the relationship the home had with community based health services such as GPs and district nurses.

Appropriate notifications to the Care Quality Commission were made.

We saw that the general care plans were up to date, detailed and clear but some of the night care plans and risk assessments had not been reviewed since November 2013.

People we spoke with thought the staff were very nice and they enjoyed the activities. One person said "It's quite nice, the staff are lovely and it is well run".

We saw that some of the medication administration record (MAR) charts were not completed in full when people received their medication. Information on how to administer specific medication was not recorded on the MAR chart or on the label on the bottle or tube containing the medication.

We saw that there were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs during the afternoon and when staff went on breaks.

Staff had regular supervision, monthly team meetings and annual supervision but we saw that some people were not up to date with their training. The training records we saw did not include the date some staff members had completed various training courses. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had regular meetings with their managers, annual appraisals and felt supported.

There was a clear complaints policy in place and information on how to raise concerns was provided to people using the service and their relatives.

One person said "I really enjoyed the Elvis impersonator, I hope he is coming back again".

People who use the service told us they liked the staff, the way they were treated and they liked living in the home and felt safe.

During our visit people told us they were 'well taken care of', its 'one lovely home' and they 'can't grumble' when asked to comment on their care and what it is like living in the home.

A relative commented that there was 'Nothing I can find wrong with this home. The staff are out of this world.'