Archived: Middleton Court

Middleton Court care home is based in Speke, Liverpool. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to 10 people who need personal care. The building is owned by Anchor Trust. The care and support is provided by staff employed by Liverpool City Council. The home is on the first floor of a large building, which also provides other services. The home provides services to older people who need rehabilitation after a stay in hospital.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 provider did not always ensure robust recruitment checks were in place for staff who worked at the home.

Everyone who was staying in the care home told us that they felt safe and secure. There were safeguarding procedures in place, including an up to date safeguarding policy. Staff we spoke with could clearly explain the action they would take if they felt someone was being abused.

There were safe procedures for the storing and administration of medication. The staff who administered the medication had training to be able to do this and records showed accurate recording of medication.

There was a detailed initial assessment process in place following people’s discharge from hospital before they stayed at the home. This included risk assessments and any identified medical needs that people had.

The building was clean and tidy and there were no odours or clutter. The home was adapted well to suit people’s needs whilst they were recovering.

The people staying at the home during our inspection had full capacity; therefore there were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place. The registered manager and the staff demonstrated a good understanding of this subject and told us they would act accordingly if people’s capacity changed during their stay.

People told us they had regular meals and were complimentary about the food. We were able to sample the food and found it tasted nice and looked appetising.

We observed staff treating people with respect and could hear caring and friendly conversations taking place between staff and people in the home. People gave us examples of how staff treated them with dignity and respect.

Each person who stayed at the home had a file which contained information with regards to their likes and dislikes. People told us they had different levels of need, and we could see how the staff were providing diverse support to reflect these needs.

There had been no complaints in the last 12 months. We could see there was a complaints procedure in place and this was displayed on the notice board in reception. The registered manager also showed us examples of the complaints procedure.

People who lived at the home and the staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the staff team.

Quality assurance systems that were in place showed continuous improvements being made in the delivery of care. All of the feedback we saw from 2015 was positive.

There was evidence of good professional relationships between the management of the home and the local GP surgery and pharmacist. Both professionals regularly attended the home in a professional capacity.

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

The people we spoke with told us they felt the home was clean and safe. One person told us 'The room and the home is very clean.'

The people told us the staff were cheerful, happy and positive. They also told us they had no concerns about the services they received and were confident they could speak to the staff if they had any concerns.

People were cared for by staff that had been through the appropriate recruitment checks.

We saw how staff worked with people at their own pace. Staff encouraged people to be independent and did this in a professional manner. The records we reviewed were accurate and up to date. We found staff were trained, however some staff needed refresher training in some mandatory topics. There were systems in place to support staff in their work. However, supervision was not always given regularly.

People told us they thought that staff were 'excellent' at looking after them. They said they were 'treated well' and their experiences in the home were positive. People told us that if they had a complaint they would talk to the staff and they were confident any issues would be dealt with properly.

Staff talked positively about their work. Staff said they aimed to provide a person centred service. We were told however that staff found the shifts busy and challenging because of the change in service, from respite to intermediate care, and the demands this had put on staff time, roles and availability.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. The service would benefit from having access to a medication trolley.