Morton Close

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well Led - This means we looked for evidence that service, leadership, management and governance assured high quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. We rated the service Requires Improvement. The provider did not have robust and effective governance arrangements in place and we identified a breach of regulations. People’s care records were not always detailed and up to date. This meant people were at risk of harm and poor care. Staff felt confident to speak up and were positive about the support they received from manager. The manager was new in post and was not registered with CQC. There were improvements over the course of the assessment and the provider worked well with the staff team to promote a shared direction and culture.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The manager and staff described a shared direction and culture and working together to improve quality and safety. The manager told us they were planning staff appraisals in order to further improve the shared direction. The manager said, “We have skilled staff who have been here a long time and are very passionate. They just needed direction for us all to move forward.” They expressed their confidence the home was on an improvement journey.

The provider had processes in place to engage with people, relatives and staff. Regular team meetings were held with all groups of staff. Staff described a strong sense of teamwork and a shared vision.

Staff told us the manager was visible and approachable and expressed their confidence in them. One staff member said, “I think it is going very well. The current manager is trying to bring the home back up.” The manager was committed to their role and demonstrated their support of the team. They said, "I have an open-door policy." The manager had plans to support staff development and involvement by introducing champion roles to enhance key areas of care delivery.

There was no registered manager in place. The manager had been in post since February 2024 and was undertaking a leadership course to support their development. They told us they had plans to commence their application to register with the Commission. However, we found there were gaps in their knowledge and effective support was not always in place from the provider to mitigate this. In April 2024 we were not assured support from the provider was effective in some key areas. In July 2024 increased support was in place and the manager had received additional training in care planning and support with enhanced audits. They told us this had helped to increase their skills and confidence in their role.

Staff felt able to raise any concerns and understood the importance of speaking up to protect people. One staff member said, “I will raise concerns to my manager or occupational manager or whistleblow.”

The provider had processes in place to support staff to speak up and raise concerns. This included a Whistleblowing Policy and staff had access to an independent advisor as an option to escalate any concerns they had.

Staff told us they felt supported as individuals. Staff gave examples of how their diverse personal needs were respected and supported by the manager.

Processes were in place to ensure the workforce was treat fairly and included. There were robust recruitment procedures in place to recruit, induct and train staff. There was regular engagement with staff via supervisions, appraisals, team meetings and regular daily contact from the manager.

Staff told us they felt well informed about changes relevant to their role. The manager acknowledged there had been shortfalls in checks which impacted on the quality and safety of people’s care. They responded positively to our feedback and took action to introduce additional audits.

The provider’s governance arrangements had not been effective. The shortfalls we found over the course of the assessment had not been picked up by audits and quality checks. In April 2024 we found there was no robust system for assessing and managing risks to people. This meant people were at a heightened risk of injury and their health and well-being deteriorating. Some care records were inaccurate and lacked person centred information. The provider had policies in place, but they were not detailed and did not follow best policy guidance.

We invited the registered provider to attend our feedback meetings, but they did not attend.

In July 2024 governance processes had improved but we highlighted ongoing areas where further improvement was required. For example, multiple shortfalls had been highlighted in the provider’s own audit after our feedback in April 2024, but we continued to find omissions and contradictions in people’s care records. The manager told us this would be fully addressed in August 2024 and we were assured they had a fuller understanding of their role in relation to strong governance and oversight.

Whilst some improvements had been made governance processes were not robust. This was a breach of regulation 17(Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014

People and relatives told us the home worked in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders, including health and social care professionals to ensure they had continuity of care.

The manager told us they worked in partnership with other professional and stakeholders. There was evidence of some community working but this was limited but there were plans to increase engagement, including contacts with local schools. The local vicar visited every fortnight and met with people individually or in groups.

The home continued to be under enhanced monitoring by the local authority contracting and commissioning team.

Processes were in place to support partnership working with other professionals and stakeholders. The manager had regular communication with the local authority. The manager was a member of the Bradford Managers Care Consortium and attended regular meetings with other local providers to share information and best practice.

Staff described an open and honest culture where they felt listened to and people mattered.

Over the course of the assessment, we saw evidence processes had improved to support safe and effective care. There were plans in place to provide additional training for staff and develop a 'champion' role to ensure staff were fully involved and engaged. There were outstanding areas such as care planning which required further work and some learning had not been fully embedded. There had been improvements in how accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed but we continued to find examples where the opportunity to learn wider lessons had not been taken. For example, the issue around access to the open staircase posed a risk to multiple people.

The provider had not demonstrated continuous improvement and had failed to ensure safe and effective governance of the home. Some of the issues we identified in this assessment had been identified in previous inspections and effective action had not been taken to drive and sustain improvement. The manager was committed to learning and improvement. They were receptive to feedback and took action to improve the quality of the service.