Archived: Midtown House

Updated 24 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 4 February and was announced.

Updated 24 February 2021

Midtown House is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The inspection took place on 6 December 2018 and was unannounced.

The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of inspection but had a registered provider who oversaw the day to day running of the service, and was the manager. 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.

People who used the service felt safe and at home in a welcoming and relaxed environment. Staff ensured people felt at ease in their surroundings and their individualities were respected.

All staff knew how best to reduce the potential anxieties and risks people faced. Specific risks were clearly assessed with actions in place to reduce them.

All aspects of medicines management were safe, including storage and disposal, administration and ongoing monitoring of staff competence. Staff were suitably trained and knowledgeable.

There were sufficient staff to ensure people were safely supported. The premises were well maintained and clean throughout. Servicing to equipment had happened regularly.

Staff were well supported through formal mandatory training and ad hoc support from the manager and senior staff. This training was well monitored and managed. Effective systems were in place to ensure the accurate documentation and update of people’s care needs. Staff understood these systems well and liaised proactively with external healthcare professionals.

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

The premises were well suited to people’s needs, with a range of communal spaces indoors and outdoors. Meals were planned with people’s preferences in mind.

People were extremely complimentary about the care they received from staff, as were relatives. Staff knew people extremely well, were able to anticipate their needs, and reciprocated the affection and warmth they were shown.

People were encouraged to take part in the planning of their care but were respected when they chose not to engage in specific conversations about aspects of care. The manager ensure family members were involved to ensure people’s best interests were known and acted on.

Activities were meaningful and led by people’s preferences.

Staff morale was high, turnover low, and the team worked well together.

The manager and staff had worked hard to ensure the culture remained strongly focussed on the needs of individuals and ensured they felt cared for in a place they considered home.

All staff confirmed the management of the service was open, collaborative and approachable. We found the manager had successfully balanced strong oversight of the service with a hands-on approach to helping people who used the service on a day to day basis.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.