• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Morningside

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4 Newton Road, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 9FA (01768) 890768

Provided and run by:
Community Integrated Care

All Inspections

12 May 2017

During a routine inspection

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 12 May 2017. We carried out a focused inspection on 29 December 2016 and found that the service was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Both before and after that inspection we attended quality improvement meetings organised by the local authority throughout the latter half of 2016 and 2017. As part of the quality improvement process the service provided regularly updated action plan that showed how it had improved. You can read the report from our last focused inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Morningside on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Morningside is a small bungalow set in its own grounds in a residential area a short walk from the amenities of Penrith. It provides care and support for up to five people who live with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people living there.

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. At the time of our inspection a new manager had been appointed and the service was in the process of registering them with the CQC. They will be referred to as ‘the manager’ throughout this report. The registered manager was not present but did attend the home regularly as part of the transition to the new manager.

Support plans were subject to regular review to ensure they met people’s changing needs. They were easy to read and based on assessment and reflected the needs of people. Risk assessments were carried out and plans were put in place to reduce risks to people’ safety and welfare.

Where people were not able to make important decisions about their lives the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to protect their rights. Staff were aware of how to identify and report abuse. There were also policies in place that outlined what to do if staff had concerns about the practice of a colleague.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. They were trained to an appropriate standard and received regular supervision and appraisal. As part of their recruitment process the service carried out background checks on new staff including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

The service managed medicines appropriately. They were correctly stored, monitored and administered in accordance with the prescription. People were supported to maintain their health and to access health services if needed.

Staff had developed good relationships and demonstrated good communication skills. They were aware of how to treat people with dignity and respect.

There was a complaints procedure in place that outlined how to make a complaint and how long it would take to deal with. People were aware of how to raise a complaint and who to speak to about any concerns they had.

The manager had a vision for the future of the service. A quality assurance system was in place that was utilised to improve the service.

29 December 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This unannounced focused inspection took place on 29 December 2016. We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service in January 2015. After that inspection we received concerns in relation to high levels of safeguarding incidents, particularly people being violent or aggressive towards each other. Concerns had also been raised about the leadership and management support and the management of medicines. We attended quality improvement meetings throughout the latter half of 2016 in which the provider discussed the current challenges of managing the service. They provided an action plan to help us understand the improvements they were making. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to those topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Morningside on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Morningside is a small bungalow set in its own grounds in a residential area a short walk from the amenities of Penrith. It provides care and support for up to five people who live with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people living there.

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.

The premises were not clean or tidy which meant that it was difficult to maintain a hygienic environment. The provider intended to improve the environment and ensure people were properly supported to maintain their own personal spaces, such as bedrooms.

There were insufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The provider had identified a safe level of staff but consistently failed to maintain this. The provider had successfully employed two new staff to alleviate this issue and recruitment was ongoing.

A quality assurance system was in place but was ineffectual. This was because the registered manager had insufficient time to complete audits and checks, due to staffing pressures.

The service managed medicines appropriately. They were correctly stored, monitored and administered in accordance with the prescription. People were supported to maintain their health and to access health services if needed. People who required support with eating and drinking received it and had their nutrition and hydration support needs regularly assessed.

We found breaches of regulations in relation to premises and equipment, staffing and good governance. You can see the action we have asked the provider to take at the back of this report.

23rd January 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on the 23rd January 2015. We last inspected Morningside in July 2013 At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

Morningside is a small bungalow set in its own grounds in a residential area a short walk from the amenities of Penrith. It provides care and support for up to five people who live with learning disabilities.

The service currently does not have a registered manager. The provider had made interim arrangements with the CQC and a temporary manager was in place while recruitment took place for a permanent manager. The temporary manager was carrying out the role of a registered manager and had previous experience working for the provider. 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.

There were sufficient staff on the day of our inspection. Staff and the manager at the home acknowledged that, at times, more staff were required to meet the needs of people in the home. The manager was devising strategies to ensure that more staff were available when needed. Risks were being managed well at the home because comprehensive assessments were carried out and risk plans adhered to.

Staff were well versed in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and records we held indicated that the home cooperated with the local safeguarding authority.

Medicines were well managed and stored correctly.

People were cared for by well trained, competent and confident staff. Every effort was made to ensure that people’s rights to consent to and refuse treatment were respected. This included following appropriate guidance when people lacked capacity to make their own decisions.

People’s nutritional needs were being met because they had been correctly assessed and the information from assessments was being used to good effect.

The service cooperated with other providers to ensure that all of people’s health and social care needs were met.

The staff were caring and professional. They had taken the time to get to know the people who they supported.

Wherever possible people were involved in decisions about their care. Staff utilised a number of techniques, including assistive technology, to ensure that they communicated with people effectively. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Support was based on the ethos of maximising people’s independence. Assessments of people’s needs were comprehensive and took into account people’s likes and dislikes. Support plans were based on assessments and gave clear strategies as to how to meet people’s needs. People were engaged with on a daily basis by staff in Morningside. In addition to this they met with social workers and community learning disability workers as well as their relatives and friends. This meant that people were able to express their thoughts and opinions of the service to a variety of people if they chose to do so. In addition to this there was a corporate complaints policy that was accessible to the people who use the service and visitors to the home.

We found that the service was well led. The temporary manager was aware of issues that needed to be addressed and had a vision of how the service would look in the future. There was a corporate quality assurance system in place which gave both the manager and the provider up to date information as to how the service was performing.

19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three of the five people who used this service. All three people were able to express that they were satisfied with the service they received.

We found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs which was delivered by staff who were supported to an appropriate standard. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse and against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.,The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

24 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were satisfied with the service they received. They said that:

"Yes they support us."

"They speak to us nicely."

"I'm alright."

We found that the home was clean and maintained good standards of hygiene. The staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and had good relationships with them. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

28 June 2011

During a routine inspection

People were observed speaking up and making requests from staff and this was obviously a regular occurrence that they felt comfortable with. They said they could talk to the staff and they were kind and helped them.

People have good access to other services and advocates, and they are part of the community. This means they are not isloated and it gives them opportunities to speak up and express themselves if they are unhappy or are concerned about the care they receive.

Socialworkers we contacted said they had been impressed with how the home had developed peoples involvement with the local community. They reported improved care plans which helped people to develop new skills, and that risk assessments supported people to try out new activities.

People living at the home told us about how staff had helped them to make new friends and to keep in contact with their families.