Maison Moti Care Home

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

People were protected from the risk of abuse and harm by staff who understood their responsibilities around safeguarding. People were kept safe through effective risk assessing which was reviewed on a regular basis. People were protected from the risk of infection through clear processes and policies. Medicines were well managed and there were systems in place to monitor and address any concerns.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and relatives told us they felt safe living at the home and felt safe raising any concerns or issues to staff. People felt comfortable to express themselves to staff. People and relatives told us care staff were skilled in their roles and told us they were confident they or their loved ones were safe living at the home. One person said, “I’m so happy here...I feel safe.”

Staff understood how to recognise and report any concerns around safeguarding and were confident these would be dealt with if they did happen. The registered manager told us about their responsibilities regarding safeguarding people and reporting concerns to external professionals accordingly. They took timely actions to investigate incidents to ensure they were addressed appropriately. The registered manager knew the principles of Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and spoke about how they were working in line with it when providing care and support to people.

We observed staff were visible around the home. Staff were responsive when people asked for support.

Staff had received training in safeguarding which was refreshed regularly. There was information about preventing and reporting abuse displayed on the notice board in the communal areas. There was an up to date safeguarding policy which staff had access to. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had made DoLS referrals, where appropriate for people living in the service to ensure appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty.

Staff knew people’s needs and associated risks. Staff followed processes documented in risk assessments to mitigate risks. People told us they felt safe with staff who understood their care and support needs around managing risk. Risk assessments were person centred and tailored for each person’s care and support needs.

The registered manager showed a clear understanding of the importance of assessing and managing people’s risks and said, “Managing risks is always forefront on my mind." The registered manager was relatively new in post and told us they were in the process of reviewing all people’s risk assessments.

The premises were free from visible hazards. Some people mobilised with walking aids which they had access to. Where needed, staff monitored people during mealtimes and ensured they received appropriate support.

Risk assessments were reviewed every six months and updated when people’s care needs changed. Risk assessments covered areas such as physical health, personal hygiene, falls, emotional health and contained clear instructions for staff. Procedures relating to incidents were clear and available for all staff to read. Accidents and incidents were well documented, and learning was shared in staff meetings. The home had up to date maintenance checks for gas, electrical installation and fire equipment. Staff understood how to report any maintenance issues regarding the building.

People told us they were supported to keep their rooms clean and tidy. When people needed encouragement, they said staff were kind in how they worked with them to achieve this.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in ensuring a safe environment for people. They were able to explain what health and safety checks staff completed to monitor the building and environment safety.

We observed the premises to be clutter free and safe from visible hazards. Fire extinguishers were in date. Windows secured with restrictors to ensure people were safe from accidents. An emergency grab bag in case of fire was in place. This included emergency information for each person and what support they may need in the event of a fire.

Staff understood how to report any maintenance issues. There was a maintenance team who promptly addressed identified concerns. There were certificates in place which showed the provider kept the building and equipment regularly assessed and maintained. There was an up-to-date buildings fire risk assessment and all fire equipment was tested on a regular basis.

People told us they felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person said, “Plenty of staff.” People knew staff were available during the night and one person talked about knowing staff were there if they needed anything.

The registered manager told us staffing was based on people’s needs. There were 2 staff members as a minimum per shift and the registered manager said more staff were brought in when people needed additional help to attend appointments or activities. Where shifts needed to be covered, they tried to use bank staff (staff employed by the provider on an ad hoc basis) rather than agency staff. This was to ensure staff knew and understood the people.

We observed enough staff throughout the day. Staff were not rushed and had enough time to support people appropriately. People knew staff well and we observed people and staff interacting in a positive and supportive way.

Staff were recruited safely, and the provider had completed all relevant background checks to ensure people were kept safe. People’s care and support needs were monitored regularly, and staffing levels were adjusted to match any change in needs. Staff received an induction when they started work which included completing the Care Certificate. The Care Certificate is an agreed set of standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in the health and social care sectors. It is made up of the 15 minimum standards that should form part of a robust induction programme. Staff received regular training to support them in their role and promote best practice. Staff had regular supervision and appraisal to help them develop in their role.

People told us they felt the home was clean. They also said told staff helped them clean and tidy their rooms to ensure their personal space supported their wellbeing.

Staff told us they had access to appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. Staff were encouraged to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and seasonal flu to help protect people from the risk of infection.

The home looked clean and smelled fresh at the time of the inspection. There were dedicated cleaning staff who ensured there were good standards of cleanliness and hygiene. We observed cleaning of various areas of the home throughout the inspection. Staff understood infection control processes and we observed staff following these during the inspection.

Staff had received training in infection control, including COVID-19, which was refreshed regularly. There was an up-to-date infection control policy in place which staff had access to. People were protected from the risk of infection by good staff practice around infection control.

People we spoke with told us they received their medicines on time. Staff encouraged people to understand their medicines during one-to-one meetings.

Staff received regular training on medicines management, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines.

There were ‘as needed’ medicines protocols in place which gave staff clear guidance on when to offer people as needed medicines. As needed medicines are medicines such as pain relief, help with constipation and anti-anxiety which have been prescribed for people for when they need them. We found there was no overuse of anti-anxiety medicines to control people’s behaviour. Staff understood how to work with people when they were experiencing periods of distress using other techniques such as talking and distraction. There was clear information in people’s care plans about medicines management and how people wanted to be supported with this. Where necessary, there were clear risk assessments in place which provided information and guidance for staff. There were regular medicines audits which ensured the registered manager had good oversight of medicines systems.