Archived: Murray House

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection of this service in May 2015, although we rated them ‘Good’ overall, we rated them ‘Requires Improvement’ for the key question ‘Is the care home safe’. This was because the provider had failed to store substances hazardous to health safely, which meant the people living at the home had been placed at unnecessary risk of harm. We undertook a focused inspection in November 2015 to check the provider had taken appropriate action to resolve this issue and found they met legal requirements. At this inspection we found the service continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards and therefore remains rated ‘Good’ overall.

The service had a registered manager in post who had returned to work in June 2017 after being on maternity leave for the past year. In the registered manager’s absence the service’s deputy manager had been in operational charge of the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When people were nearing the end of their life, they received compassionate and supportive care. However, staff had not received any end of life care training. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to arrange for staff to attend this training to help them meet the needs and wishes of people nearing the end of their life. Progress made by the service to achieve this stated aim will be assessed at their next inspection.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs. Each person had a comprehensive and individualised support plan that encompassed all aspects of their lives. This set out clearly for staff how they should be meeting people's needs and wishes. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their personal and health needs, food and drink preferences and social interests. Staff encouraged people to actively participate in meaningful leisure and recreational activities that reflected their social interests and wishes, and maintain relationships with people that mattered to them. In addition, the Eden Alternative Foundation recently accredited Murray House for its innovative work providing older people who lived there with person centred and fulfilling care and support. The Eden Alternative is an internationally recognised Foundation that promotes person centred care, independent living skills and accessing meaningful social activities for older people.

People remained safe at Murray House. There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse. The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs. Although there had been a reduction in staffing levels there continued to be enough staff on duty to keep people safe. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff continued to be suitably trained and received all the support they needed to perform their roles effectively. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink to meet their dietary needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

People continued to be treated with dignity and respect by staff. People’s privacy was maintained particularly when being supported by staff with their personal care needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff helped them in the least restrictive way possible.

The registered manager and deputy manager continued to provide good leadership and led by example. The service had an open and transparent culture. People felt comfortable raising any issues they might have about the home with staff. The service had arrangements in place to deal with people’s concerns and complaints appropriately. The provider also routinely gathered feedback from people living in the home, their relatives and staff. This feedback alongside the provider’s own audits and quality checks was used to continually assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service they provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

A relative said "I have always found Murray House staff very caring and sympathetic towards all residents. There is a borderline between ageing and dementia symptoms, but the residents are all treated with compassion, respect and dignity and the residents are well cared for in a safe, caring environment".

We saw that people were involved in choosing the type of care and support they needed and when they needed it. One person we spoke with said "From the minute I stepped in here, when I viewed it, I thought this is the home I want and I've seen a few. I've been here over three years".

We saw that the quality of care people who used the service received was good and enabled them to maintain a healthy and good quality of life in a safe and comfortable environment. People's needs were being met in an atmosphere that acknowledged the importance of person centred care. One person said "It's given me a new lease of life". "Everything is to my liking, especially the people. I can relax".

People told us and we saw that their opinions were sought and acted upon regarding the care and support they received and activities they wished to pursue. One person we spoke with said "The activities stimulate our brains, I'm delving into lots of things that happened in the past and the activities bring them to life". Relatives we spoke with said they were in frequent contact with the home and encouraged to put their views forward regarding the service provided.

We saw records and care practices that demonstrated peoples' preferences, choices and wishes were taken into account and were met in a person-centred way. The activities provided had a group and individual focus and were suggested by people who used the service.

The home worked with other providers to deliver a cohesive, sensitive and joined up service, by providing relevant information and services in a timely way.

We were informed that the service was no longer accepting permanent admissions and a consultation had begun looking at the future provision of community services with the Royal Borough of Kingston. All of the people currently living in Murray House had been assured that places would continue to be available for them within one of the four council residential homes for as long as they needed them. Short term assessment and respite admissions were still being accepted at the time of our visit.

The home is part of the Eden Alternative which has a philosophy of creating communities where people make their own rules according to how they desire to live.

Overall feedback about the service included 'I'm very happy here', 'I like it here at Murray House, I like what they do' and 'I feel that we are very privileged'. One person said 'it's a place that makes you feel like somebody'. Comments about staff were positive and included 'very helpful', 'the staff are good', 'they're a good bunch here' and 'friendly'.