You are here

Archived: Marlborough House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 October 2015

Marlborough House provides care and support for up to 12 people with a learning disability. At the time of our visit there were 12 people living at Marlborough House.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 17 July 2015.

The home had 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 requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at Marlborough House and that the staff helped them to feel safe and secure in their home. There were systems in place to reduce the risks to people and protect them from harm.

The service had in place robust recruitment procedures which ensured that staff had the appropriate skills, background and qualifications for the role. There were enough suitably trained and supported staff available to support people during our inspection.

There were effective systems in place to ensure that medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. People received appropriate support to take their medicines.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management of the service and that the training they received provided them with a good understanding of topics such as the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff.

The service was complying with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the DoLS. Appropriate DoLS applications had been made where required and assessments of people’s capacity were completed appropriately. People were supported to make decisions independently and were encouraged to develop independent living skills.

People were encouraged and supported to take part in many activities they enjoyed, within the service and outside of the service.

People told us the staff were caring and kind towards them.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to identify shortfalls or areas for improvement. There was an open culture at the service. People using the service, their relatives and staff were given the opportunity to express their views and these were acted on by the service. There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us they knew how to make a complaint if they weren’t happy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 October 2015

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment procedures were robust.

People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Risks to people’s safety were planned for, monitored and well managed by the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 October 2015

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training, support and development which enabled them to meet people’s needs effectively.

People were provided with a range of food and drinks which met their nutritional needs.

Consent was obtained appropriately. Staff and the registered manager complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 9 October 2015

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and treated them in a kind, caring and respectful manner.

People formed close bonds with the staff and a caring atmosphere was promoted by the provider and the registered manager.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 October 2015

The service was responsive.

People received care which was planned and delivered in line with their personalised support plan. People had input in the planning of their care.

People and their relatives were supported to give feedback on the service and suggest areas for improvement.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

People were supported to pursue their interests and to access activities of their choice in the community.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 October 2015

The service was well-led.

There was an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify shortfalls.

There was an open and inclusive culture in the home, with staff and people using the service encouraged to help shape the service they received.