Archived: Morovahview Residential Home

Updated 10 July 2018

We carried out this comprehensive inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included past reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector. We spoke with a range of people about the service; this included seven people who lived at Morovahview and two visiting relatives, four staff members and the manager. We also spoke with a visiting professional during the inspection.

We looked at care records of three people who lived at the service, training and recruitment records of two staff members. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service.

During our inspection, we used a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This involved observing staff interactions with people in their care. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 10 July 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on the 11 June 2018. The last comprehensive inspection took place on the 14 and 20 June 2016. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.

The service provides care for up to sixteen people. At the time of the inspection thirteen people were receiving care at Morovahview. Some of the people who lived at the service needed care and support due to dementia, sensory and /or physical disabilities. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Morovahview is situated close to the centre of Hayle. It is a detached property in a residential area of the town. There are two floors with the upper being reached by stairs and a stair lift. All room are single. There are two shared bathrooms and shared toilets. Shared living areas include one lounge with adjoining conservatory, a dining room and patio seating area. There were a range of aids and adaptations to support people with limited mobility.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had received an application from the current manager to register with the commission in order to meet the requirements of its registration to have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The atmosphere in the service on the day of the inspection was relaxed, friendly and calm. Staff responded promptly when people asked for help and support was provided at a relaxed pace. Throughout our inspection we observed staff providing support with respect and kindness. People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at Morovahview Care Home. Comments included, “It’s the best move I made. Love living here because I get all the care I need from lovely staff,” “If I need staff they answer my call bell very quickly. I feel very safe” and “I have everything I need here and it makes me feel safe and as if I belong here.”

Detailed care planning and review meant that people’s risks were being managed effectively to ensure they were safe. Risks were clearly identified and included guidance for staff on the actions they should take to minimise any risk of harm. In particular risks in relation to people’s skin care and nutrition were being effectively monitored. Records reported on changes in people’s level of risk and how those risks were going to be managed.

Care records were personalised to the individual and detailed how people wished to be supported. They provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective care and support.

The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide the level of support people required. The manager also supported staff when necessary. Some staff told us they felt another staff member at the busiest times in the morning and evening would mean they were not as rushed. We shared this with the manager. They told us they constantly reviewed staffing levels against the needs of people using the service and that the current levels had been assessed as suitable to meet people’s individual needs. There was no evidence that call bells were delayed in response, or that a higher number of accidents and incidents were occurring at specific times of the day or night to demonstrate staffing levels were not adequate. People told us and we observed staff were responsive and available when they needed them.

Staff were sufficiently skilled to meet people’s needs. Necessary pre-employment checks had been completed and there were systems in place to provide new staff with appropriate induction training. Existing staff received regular training, supervision and annual performance appraisals.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and act on any allegations of abuse.

The manager used effective systems to record and audit accidents and incidents. Action was taken to mitigate those risks from occurring again. There was a culture of openness and honesty and staff felt able to raise concerns or suggestions.

The service was well maintained. It was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Capacity assessments had been carried out. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly. There were no restrictions authorised at the time of the inspection.

Meals were appetising and people were offered a choice in line with their dietary requirements and preferences. Where necessary staff monitored what people ate to help ensure they stayed healthy.

There was a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the service and their relatives. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

The manager had recently introduced a comprehensive system to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This included consistent regular audits of all care and support as well as operational issues. The manager set up systems to engage with people as well as external professionals. People’s views were positive about how the service operated. Staff told us, “There have been some changes but the manager talks with us all the time” and “We [staff] feel there could be more staff to help at the busiest times but we are talking with the manager about it.”

People were able to take part in activities supported by staff and external entertainers. These included, singing sessions, music entertainers, bingo, pamper sessions and visiting therapeutic animals from a local farm.