Archived: Morris Care Centre

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The area to be used as a designated setting is a unit which can be self-contained. It has its own entrance so people, staff and visiting professionals will not have to go through the home.

¿ The designated setting will have its own staff team who will only work on this unit.

¿ The logistics for provision of cleaning, meals and laundry were all in place for the designated setting.

¿ The provider had well established infection control and prevention policies, procedures and safe systems of practice in place. These were well embedded throughout the whole home.

¿ The provider had ensured COVID-19 testing regimes, visiting arrangements and vaccination requirements all met current Government guidance.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The provider had created a zoned area with a separate entrance. This ensured they could care for people safely who had tested positive for Covid-19 in hospital and needed to transfer to a care home under the Winter Discharge Designation Settings scheme.

¿ Staff were deployed to work solely within this part of the service, which reduced the risk of cross transmission of infection.

¿ A system to ensure clothing and bedding was cleaned separately to reduce the risk of cross infection across the service had been implemented.

¿ The provider had increased the domestic staff hours to ensure regular cleaning and sanitising of the service was completed.

¿ A visiting policy and risk assessments ensured visits maintained people’s safety and the risk of cross infection reduced. When visits were restricted other methods were used to ensure people continued to have contact with their loved ones such as, video and telephone calls.

¿ Staff received up to date guidance and training in infection control and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The registered manager understood where to signpost staff to support their mental wellbeing.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting

Morris Care Centre is a nursing home providing personal and nursing care to 83 people. The service can support up to 96 people.

Morris Care Centre is situated in three Courts. Ercall Court is a small house accommodating 11 people living with dementia. The environment in Ercall Court is dementia friendly to assist people to find their way around.

Wellington Court and Wrekin Court are situated within the same building, people living there have complex nursing needs. Aids and adaptations are in place to assist people with their mobility and to promote their independence. People have access to three gardens located around the building.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe living in the home and staff were aware of their responsibility of safeguarding them from the risk of potential abuse. Risk management and the implementation of assessments helped to mitigate the risk of harm to people. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. People were supported by skilled staff to take their prescribed medicines. Hygiene standards within the home were maintained to reduce the risk of avoidable infections. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong to ensure there were no reoccurrence.

Staff were supported and made to feel valued and people felt safe and comfortable with the support they received. Staff were proud of the care and support they provided, to ensure people's specific needs were met at a high standard. Staff had access to training and skills learnt were implemented to ensure people received person centred care. The provider worked with other agencies to ensure people received a seamless service. The environment was suitable to meet people's needs. People were supported by staff to drink and eat enough to promote their health. People had access to healthcare services to promote their physical and mental health.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were cared for by staff who were kind, compassionate and demonstrated a good understanding of their needs. People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and support needs. People’s right to privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

The provider had good systems in place to ensure comprehensive pre- admissions assessments were carried out with people's involvement. This ensured their move into home was safe, effective and reflective of their specific needs.

Innovative communication tools were in place to enable people to express their needs, have a say about their care, support and to ensure they live a fulfilled life. People had access to a variety of social activities to ensure they always had something to look forward to and to have different social experiences. People are supported by staff to have a positive presence within their local community. People and staff's ethnicity, culture and religion were celebrated. There was a positive emphasis and inclusion of Lesbian, gay bisexual and transsexual (LGBT).

People were supported by staff to maintain and celebrate meaningful relationships. People could be confident their complaints would be listened to, taken seriously and acted on.

People were cared for by skilled staff at the end of their life to ensure they were pain free and comfortable. The provider went above and beyond to ensure people's end of life wishes were met and that both their families and staff were supported during and after the person's end of life.

There was a positive culture in the home where people were encouraged to be involved in running the home. Various systems were in place to capture people's views and opinion with regards to the quality of the service provided. People's involvement in the recruitment of staff and the assessment during the probationary period ensured all staff were suitable to work in the home.

There was a clear management structure in place and people knew who was running the home. The registered manager ensured they were accessible to people who used the service, relatives and staff to provide support and guidance if and when needed.

The registered manager understood the duty of candour and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There was a strong emphasis on continuing improvement, to ensure people received positive experiences and to promote their wellbeing. The provider engaged with the public and other agencies to ensure people received an effective service. The provider’s governance ensured the routine review and monitoring of the home to ensure people received an good service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The last rating for this service was Good (published 30 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, in February 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People continued to receive care which protected them from harm and abuse. Staff supported people's needs in a safe way, monitored risks to their safety and were available when people needed support. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way. People had their medicines when they needed them.

Staff were supported through training and meetings where their views were listened to. Staff were encouraged to develop their skills so that they could develop their professionalism and take additional responsibilities in the home. Some of the staff had worked at the service for several years providing people with a continuity of care

People received care that was kind and compassionate. Care was tailored to the individual and provided by staff that were respectful, trained, well supported and managed to ensure that people received a caring service.

Relationships with families and friends were respectful. People were able to maintain and develop their ties with people important to them. Friends and families built relationships with other people living in the home. This provided people living in the home with a continuation of friendships and interactions with a wide group of people that were interested in them as individuals and that enhanced their quality of life.

People received care and support that was individual to them. Their support needs were kept under review and staff responded when there were changes in these needs. People had opportunities to give feedback and make complaints about the care and support they received. They also had opportunities to make suggestions for improvements at the service and these were listened to.

People lived in a home where they felt confident to express themselves and felt comfortable to speak with staff and managers about concerns and issues that affected them. The provider had systems in place that continued to be effective in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

communication impairment. We therefore spent some time observing people on the first floor dining area. This allowed us to assess people's experience of life in the home.

Everyone we spoke with said that the staff were respectful and treated them properly. People told us, "Staff are excellent" and, 'This is a wonderful Place.'

We observed that the care plans detailed the care needs of the people at the home and staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of people's needs.

Evidence from speaking with people who lived in the home and staff and the staff rota showed that there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff at all times. There were sufficient staff on duty at the time of our visit.

Staff told us that they had received all necessary training.