You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This inspection took place on 22 November 2017 and was unannounced.

This was the first comprehensive inspection carried out at Masson House.

Masson House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates up to 17 people in one adapted building. On the day of our visit, there were 13 people using the service.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager told us that they had recently implemented various new initiatives in relation to care planning, infection control and staffing. However, these needed time to become embedded in staff practice to demonstrate how effective they were at driving improvement at the service.

People were kept safe at the service. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. The premises were appropriately maintained to support people to stay safe. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Systems were in place to ensure the premises was kept clean and hygienic so that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with best practice and met their diverse needs. There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the correct skill mix to support people with their care. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and in addition also received on-going training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required. People were supported by staff to use and access a wide variety of other services and social care professionals. The staff had a good knowledge of other services available to people and we saw these had been involved with supporting people using the service. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about the environment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. The culture was open and honest and focused on each person as an individual. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the care planning process and the on-going reviews of their care

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service was safe.

Staff had received safeguarding training and had a good understanding of the different types of abuse and how they would report it.

People had risk assessments in place to keep them safe.

There was sufficient staff to meet people�s needs and keep them safe. Thorough recruitment procedures reduced the risks of unsuitable people working with people using the service.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report them.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service was effective.

People�s needs and choices were assessed holistically to ensure their support achieved effective outcomes.

Staff were provided with on-going training, support and supervision to ensure they always delivered good care.

People were provided with a choice of meals which met their personal preferences and supported them to maintain a balanced diet and adequate hydration.

The service had good working relationships with other professionals to ensure that people received consistent, timely and co-ordinated care. People were supported to maintain good health and attend health appointments.

People�s individual needs were met by the adaption design and decoration of the premises.

People�s consent to care and treatment was sought and people were involved in decisions about their care so that their human and legal rights were sustained.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and were given emotional support when needed.

Staff supported people to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care.

People�s privacy, dignity and independence needs were understood and respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service was responsive.

People received person centred in response to their individual needs.

There was a varied range of activities on offer at the service.

People were comfortable to raise any concerns they might have and there was a complaints procedure in place so that people knew how to make a complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2018

This service was not always well-led.

New initiatives had been introduced to improve the quality of the service provided. However these needed time to become embedded in staff practice to demonstrate how effective they were at driving improvement at the service.

There were clear visions and values at the service which staff promoted in how they supported people. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.

Systems were in place to ensure the service learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, whistleblowing and investigations.