Moreton Hill 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

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 felt safe living at the service. Relatives also felt their loved ones were safe. One relative said, “The carers are fabulous. They are always pleasant to [person] and you can go to them. We like the safety aspect.”

Staff had good knowledge of how they would respond to different incidents and any safeguarding concerns. The staff felt confident their concerns would be addressed, and if not, what action they would take. One staff member told us, “I brought concerns I had to a manager’s attention, and something was done.”

The atmosphere in the service felt warm and friendly. We observed staff throughout our visits to be kind and caring towards people. During our observations, we saw how a staff member supported a person with dementia to have their photograph taken for their care profile and explained to them the picture would only be shared on their care record. The staff member also sought advice from a more senior staff member to ensure they were following the correct procedure.

Safeguarding concerns were appropriately reported and follow up actions completed. There was a clear safeguarding policy in place which guided staff about different types of abuse and how to raise a concern to ensure people were safe. Staff completed safeguarding training as part of their training programme. Appropriate documentation was in place to ensure medicines administered covertly (administered in a disguised form where necessary) were administered in line with best practice guidelines.

People and relatives told us they felt their needs and risks were being managed appropriately. One family member told us their relative had a dietary condition which meant they needed to have a special diet, and the service had been very supportive with facilitating this. They told us “The food [they give my relative] is very good.”

Staff had good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and any potential risks which may impact on people. Staff utilised risk assessments to ensure they supported people to be safe.

Staff were aware of people’s limitations and the support measures in place, for example we observed a staff member reminding a person to sit up straighter to prevent choking. This action was in line with the person’s eating and drinking risk assessment. Safe moving and handling techniques were observed during our assessment. People who required modified diets received these in line with their risk assessments. However, we observed not all people had access to a call bell. The deputy manager explained this was because some people pulled the cords out of the walls. We observed one person not sitting in reach of their call bell so they could not use it to call for help if they needed to. This was brought to the staff’s attention, and they safely supported the person to sit closer to their call bell. Staff told us they have increased monitoring for people who are unable to use their call bells.

Care documentation and risk assessments were in place and were reviewed regularly. Care documentation contained information on known risks to people and plans to mitigate them. People’s care documents were regularly reviewed and updated in response to any change in needs. Referrals had been made to relevant healthcare professionals to support people to live safely, for example, the speech and language therapist to assess swallowing difficulties. Care documentation was comprehensive, clear for staff to understand and contained information on how to support people with taking positive risks.

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

We received positive feedback from people about the staff. Everyone we spoke to told us they felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person told us, “They enable me to have a perfect way to live my life – what is left for me. The nursing, caring and cleaning staff are brilliant – that is the sort of level that they are at. They always do things pleasantly, as if they really want to do it, I can’t think of a single thing that needs to be changed. There are lots of activities – poetry, cooking, keep fit and church services.” A family member told us “[Relative] has improved since coming here. Everyone gets space. [Relative] is happy and settled. We are very happy with it here; everybody is lovely and the staff are great - there is always the same faces.”

The registered manager told us about a dependency tool they used to determine staffing levels for each floor. This was a live document and was updated as the needs of the service and people changed. Staff felt there was sufficient staff on each floor and they had enough staff on in the afternoon to spend time socialising with people. Staff also felt the registered manager and deputy manager were approachable. The deputy manager informed us they operated an open-door policy and were available to staff as and when needed. Staff found the induction training and the management staff helpful as they started their role. One staff member said “The training itself was really good. You get 4-5 days of training.”

During our observations, we found the staffing levels were in line with people’s needs. This meant staff were able to be available to support people and be attentive to their needs. We observed staff completing regular checks on people sitting in the lounges and in their bedrooms. We observed staff responding to call bells in a timely manner.

All staff completed an induction when they started, this consisted of online training, face to face training and shadow shifts with a mentor. Staff also had received training in specific health conditions and the kitchen staff had all completed face to face training on how to prepare modified diets for people at risk of choking. Staff also had the opportunity to complete regular supervision and attend team meetings. Nursing staff received support with training required to support the re-validation of their registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). The service had robust recruitment processes to ensure the safe recruitment of staff.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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