Archived: Martin House

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Martin House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Martin House is a care home providing residential and nursing care for up to 75 older people, some living with the experience of dementia.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

During this inspection we found that the provider followed their recruitment procedures and obtained two references for all staff working with people using the service, as well as carrying out other checks on their suitability. Staff we spoke with confirmed the provider completed recruitment checks before they were allowed to work unsupervised with people using the service.

Martin House is a care home providing residential and nursing care for up to 75 older people, some living with the experience of dementia. When we inspected, 67 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People using the service may have been at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care as the provider did not follow their recruitment procedures and failed to obtain references for all new staff before they started to work in the service.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The provider had procedures to safeguard people using the service and staff knew how to use these.

People received the medicines they needed safely.

The provider made sure staff received the training and support they needed to work with people using the service.

People told us they enjoyed the food and drinks provided in the service.

The provider arranged for and supported people to access the healthcare services they needed.

The provider made sure staff received the training and support they needed to work with people using the service.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in the service and would be happy if a relative or friend lived there.

People using the service told us they felt staff treated them well.

Staff interacted with people in a caring and friendly way and explained the care or support they gave people to make sure they understood what was happening.

Each person using the service had a care plan that included an assessment of their health and social care needs.

The provider organised a range of individual and group activities that people enjoyed.

The provider had a policy and procedures for people using the service and others about how to make a complaint.

People using the service, their relatives and care workers told us they felt able to approach the management team and felt valued by them.

Throughout the inspection, the atmosphere in the home was open, welcoming and inclusive.

The provider had systems to monitor the quality of the service that people received and to make improvements.

Relatives told us 'generally, it's very good, we've no complaints' and 'the care on the whole is very good.' Staff told us 'it's a good home, we have the support we need to provide good standards of care' and 'we're a good team, it's important we work well together."

We looked at care plans and risk assessments for eight people using the service as well as staff recruitment records and the home's quality assurance systems. We used different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because some had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us about the care and support they received.

People's care plans and risk assessments were up to date and regularly reviewed. This meant staff had the information they needed to provide the care and support people needed.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the home's safeguarding adults policy and procedures, although there was a need to update these.

The provider carried out appropriate checks to make sure that staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of services provided. The manager made sure regular checks and audits were completed and shared with other people, including the provider and people commissioning the service.

People's needs were assessed and detailed care plans developed that informed staff how to meet them. Risk assessments were also in place to ensure people's safety whilst promoting their independence. People told us they felt well cared for and we observed staff supporting people in a sensitive manner considering their wishes.

The home was well maintained, clean and warm. All the required health and safety checks were taking place to ensure people's safety and any maintenance issues were addressed promptly.

There were sufficient staff who demonstrated that they had the relevant training and experience to enable them to effectively meet people's needs.

There was an effective complaints management system in place. Complaints were responded to promptly and detailed records maintained regarding the action taken and outcome. People told us that they knew how to make a complaint and would feel comfortable doing so if they had any concerns.