Archived: Murrills House

Murrills House provides care and support to people living in a 'supported living' setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. Support is provided to people who are living with a learning disability and may have other physical and mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were three people receiving personal care and support.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A company called Mylife had bought Supported Living UK in December 2017, however there were no changes to the provider’s registration with the Care Quality Commission because the company was still the same.

A registered manager was not in place at the time of our inspection. The provider had employed a manager who was in the process of applying to the Care Quality Commission to become the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

For the purpose of this report, we will refer to the person who had applied to the CQC to become the registered manager as the manager.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People and staff told us they received a safe service. All staff had undertaken training in safeguarding adults, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and could describe what action they would take to protect people from harm.

There were enough skilled staff to meet people’s needs and staff focused on providing people with person-centered support that was provided in a caring and professional manner.

Risks associated with people’s care were well known by staff, clearly documented in people’s care plans and well managed.

Medicines were managed safely and were administered by trained staff.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were encouraged to make choices about their day to day care and plans for the future.

People received care and support that was delivered in a way that met their needs and preferences. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and people were supported to be as independent as possible.

People were aware of how to raise a complaint and we saw that complaints had been investigated and resolved.

Staff felt supported by the management team. There were systems in place that monitored the quality and the safety of the service provided. Records were thorough, comprehensive and regularly reviewed.

Murrils House had policies and procedures in place that ensured that people's individual needs and wishes were assessed and recorded prior to them receiving care.

Each person receiving a service had their care needs recorded in a person centred plan of care that was kept under regular review. Risks to people's safety were assessed and clear plans to manage risks were in place for staff to follow.

Records showed us that staff received training in protecting people from risk of abuse and staff that spoke with us were aware of their responsibilities.

Staff told us that they felt well supported. They received training and regular supervision. Comments included. 'I feel one hundred per cent supported and there is always someone on the end of the phone to call twenty four hours a day'.

There were processes in place to record and respond to concerns and complaints. This included an accessible 'easy read' complaints procedure format for people using the service.

Comments we saw in questionnaires from people that used the service included. "I like going out to watch football and meet new friends. I think my home is a good home because I am happy."

People who were using the service, told us that their views about their care and treatment were solicited and acted upon. One of the people using the services stated "I am loving it where I am, they take me shopping and I get my money every Friday."

People's individual needs were assessed and we saw evidence of a robust risk assessment and plans in place to protect people from harm. These were jointly agreed with people using services, staff and provider. Staff had access to training and development opportunities in order to ensure that they had the required skills and knowledge to support people receiving care.

We found that the service had appropriate arrangements in place for staffing the service and meeting people's needs.

The provider informed us that she carried out 'spot unannounced checks' and also used supervision to monitor the delivery of services.