Archived: Mornington Hall Care Home

The home provided accommodation with nursing and personal care for up to 120 adults. At the time of our inspection 115 people were living at the service. The home was divided into four units each capable of accommodating up to 30 people. One unit specialised in residential care, one in nursing care, one in nursing and dementia care and one in residential and dementia care.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Staff did not always have access to appropriate training, in particular with regard to dementia training.

We found one breach of Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

There were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs in a safe manner. Checks were carried out on new staff before they began working at the service. Risk assessments were in place which included information about how to mitigate any risks people faced. Staff had undertaken training about safeguarding adults and were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any allegations of abuse. Medicines were managed appropriately. Safety checks were carried out at the service including fire safety checks.

Staff had access to regular training and supervision. The service operated within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were supported to make choices where they had capacity to do so. This included choices about what people ate and drank and people told us they were happy with the food provided. People had access to health care services as required.

People and relatives told us staff behaved in a caring manner and that people were treated with respect. Staff understood how to promote peoples dignity.

People were involved in developing their care plans which were regularly reviewed. People had access to various activities. People knew how to make complaints and complaints were responded to appropriately.

People that used the service and staff told us they felt the management team was open and supportive. The service had various quality assurance systems in place, some of which included seeking the views of people that used the service.

Care plans did not include sufficient information about people’s life history and their likes and dislikes and we made a recommendation about this.

Managers told us they had learned from this incident and had held meetings with the staff team to ensure they were aware of the correct procedures for gaining consent.

We found that staff had an understanding of what safeguarding was. However, most staff were not aware of the reporting mechanisms beyond their unit manager. People told us that they felt safe at the home and that staff were kind and treated them with respect. One person said , 'Yes, I feel safe. I am comfortable with most staff. Of course some are better than others. However, I cannot recall any bad experiences with staff.'

We found that people were asked for their consent before care was carried out, although they had not signed care plans to say they agreed with them. People told us that staff were polite and 'always ask before doing something with you.'

Some relatives told us that 'staff are always respectful' but there are not always enough on duty. One person told us 'Recently I haven't been out. I'd like to go out more.' However, we found that trips out had been planned, some people went out on their own and activities staff were employed by the home. Care plans were in date and were based on assessments taking into account people's routine preferences and life history. The home involved other services and healthcare professionals when needed and there were arrangements in place to ensure good communication and joint working between services.

We found the premises appeared safe and suitable, although some areas would benefit from refurbishment. There were maintenance checks and audits performed regularly.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place and appropriate checks were carried out before staff were employed. The service had procedures in place to deal with complaints satisfactorily.