Morris Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt confident in raising concerns should the need arise. Accidents, incidents and complaints were regularly reviewed. Any learning from incidents were shared with staff and action was taken to reduce the risk of them happening again. A relative told us, “On one occasion [relative] was given their medication late and the home responded very well. They apologised and plans put in place to mitigate further errors, for example reminder alerts were put on staff phones.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The registered manager liaised with other professionals. This included carrying out pre-admission assessments before people moved to the home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person said, “I feel safe, and the staff are lovely. They are so nice and caring.” Another person told us, “The staff are all lovely and I feel safe when they support me with the hoist.” The relatives we spoke with told us they felt their loved ones were safe and all commented on the kindness of the staff. A relative told us, “The staff are brilliant. I feel confident to leave [relative] in their care and their feedback is good and timely.”

People looked relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings and with the staff who supported them. Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner.

Staff told us they had received training about how to recognise and report abuse. They knew how and when to report concerns both internally and to other organisations such as the local authority, CQC and the police.

There were systems in place to ensure all staff received training and regular refresher training in safeguarding adults from abuse. Safeguarding incidents were reported, recorded and investigated.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Where appropriate people and their representatives were supported in the development of their individual risk assessments. People were supported by staff who knew the individual risks and assisted them in the least restrictive way possible whilst minimising the potential for harm. People were not subjected to any unlawful restrictive practices and were supported to live the life they wanted.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People lived in a home which was safely maintained and designated staff completed regular checks on the physical environment and equipment to minimise the potential for harm.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were systems in place to ensure staffing levels met the dependency levels of the people who lived in the home; however, we received mixed feedback from people, their relatives and staff. Some staff said they felt rushed, and people and their relatives felt they had to wait for assistance. We found no evidence that people’s basic needs were not being met. Response times to call bells were monitored and records showed people did not have to wait excessive periods for assistance. One to 1 staffing was provided to people with an assessed need. The registered manager told us staffing levels had recently been increased on 1 unit in response to feedback and they were planning to review staff deployment on the other unit in the main building.

Staff were recruited safely and there were effective systems in place to ensure staff received up to date training relevant to their role and regular supervisions. There were systems in place to ensure nurses maintained up to date registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. A professional said, “The providers training matrix showed training was compliant, and they have processes in place to ensure employees are competent to do their role.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were supported in a home which was clean and tidy where staff followed effective infection prevention and control practices. There were audits and checks in place to ensure staff followed correct procedures.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who were trained and competent in their role. One person said, “I always get my tablets when I should have them.” When staff administered medicines, their time was protected which reduced the risk of errors.

There were policies and procedures in place for the safe management and administration of people’s medicines and these were understood and followed by staff. Medicines were stored securely and there were systems in place to ensure people always had sufficient supplies of their medicines. There were regular stock checks and audits to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. There were protocols in place for medicines prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis which helped to ensure staff followed a consistent approach and people received their medicines when needed.