Morton Close

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive - This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We rated the service Good. The provider did not have detailed care plans where people were coming to the end of their lives. Information was provided in a range of formats. Systems were in place to ensure people and their relatives were listened to and their feedback responded to. Overall, we found the service was responsive to people’s diverse needs.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people and relatives told us they received person-centred care and support.

Staff told us there had been improvements in the way person-centred care was delivered and understood the importance of supporting people as individuals. One staff member told us there had been recent improvements in the level of individualized detail in people’s care plans. They said, “They are more person-centered now and staff can pick them up and know what to do.”

Processes were in place to capture people’s wishes and preferences. Care plans could be further improved to ensure more person-centred information was recorded.

People and relatives said they felt part of the community in the home, but they would welcome wider involvement with the local community in the village.

Staff and the manager ensured continuity of care by accessing some community support and other health and social care professionals.

Overall feedback from stakeholders described an improving trajectory at Morton Close. However, we received feedback from partners further improvements were required to ensure people received consistently good care and outcomes.

Processes were in place to ensure people were able to access the care and support they needed.

People and relatives told us they generally received good information, although some people told us they did not receive the home’s newsletter and relatives said they would sometimes appreciate more information about events and activities their relatives were involved in.

The manager told us they provided information to people and relatives including a service user guide and admission pack and they spent time going through this with people and relatives at their preferred pace. They said information could be provided in large print if this was required.

The provider had processes in place to share information with people, relatives and staff. The manager had recently completed reviews as a way of sharing information with people and relatives. People’s care records included information about people’s communication needs but did not show how they wanted information to be provided. There was clear signage around the home, including information using symbols. For example, there was a pictorial menu to support people’s preferred way of making choices.

People and relatives said they felt listened to and any concerns they raised were acted upon. One relative said, “Any minor issues I have raised have been acted upon.”

Staff and managers were able to demonstrate they listened to and involved people in their care and support. The manager spent informal time with people and relatives and listened to their views. The manager told us they had consciously increased the amount of time they were doing this. They told us they had improved the way informal concerns were reviewed and addressed by including these in the complaints log.

Processes were in place to listen and involve people. The provider had recently carried out a survey with people, staff and relatives. Overall feedback was positive and the provider had a ‘You said: We did’ approach which was displayed. For example, the manager had added an additional doorbell to the front door as there had been reports about visitors having to wait. We also saw people were involved in taster sessions and menu planning.

People and relatives told us the home was accessible and adjustments were made when they were required.

The manager and staff told us they promoted equity in access.

Overall feedback from stakeholders described improvements in the home. However, feedback from partners highlighted further work was required to ensure people received consistently good care and support.

Processes were in place to ensure the home was safe and accessible. Improvements were required to ensure this was consistently reflected in people's care records.

People and relatives told us they felt involved and included in their care. People were treated equitably and fairly and consideration was given to their personal preferences. For example, people's bedrooms were personalised according to their wishes. One person said, “I’ve been here a few years, the staff are very helpful.” People told us they enjoyed the activities offered. One person said, “There are plenty of things happening and we can join in. It’s good to do things together.” People complimented the choice and variety of snacks and meals available to them.

Staff understood their role to ensure people were at the centre of everything they did. They worked together with people to support them with what mattered to them. One staff member told us, “It’s about the person." Staff gave examples of how people’s diverse needs were celebrated and changes made to their care as a result of this.

The provider had processes in place to seek out and listen to people’s views and make sure adaptations were made where people had diverse needs.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about the support they received for planning for the future.

Staff gave feedback information was available in people's care plans about the support they needed at the end of their lives. However, this was not reflected in people' care plans and the provider's audit.

Staff had received training on how to support people at the end of their life. Processes were not in place to ensure people’s wishes were reflected fully in their care plans. For example, 1 person had been assessed as being at the end of their life and their care plan did not reflect their current needs and requirements. The provider had identified this in their recent audit and assured us this would be addressed.