Paul Murphy Centre

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 13 January 2025 to 7 February 2025. The service is a care home providing support, including respite support, to adults living with learning disabilities, physical disabilities. The health and safety of the care home was not always robust. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence. The health and safety of the service was not always safely managed. There were gaps in fire safety and evacuation processes. Medicines were not always safely managed. Care assessments were not always reflective of individual’s current needs. The provider was not always following the latest evidence and good practice to support people living with a learning disability. People were supported to eat and drink but the recording of nutrition and fluids were inconsistent. Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Care and support were provided in people’s best interests although this was not always recorded. People’s care plans did not always reflect their support needs. Positive behaviour plans did not identify people’s strengths and how staff should use the plan to improve people’s quality of life. Governance processes were in place to monitor and improve the service, but they were often ineffective as they were not highlighting where there were gaps in care planning, the management of medicines or the homes overall health and safety. We found 3 breaches of regulations during this assessment in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found. In instances where CQC take civil enforcement action against a provider, we publish this information on our website after any representations have been concluded.

People's experience of this service

People living at the home were unable to fully communicate with us, but we did use a pictorial communication aid to communicate with one person who told us, they liked staff, and they had a favourite staff member, they enjoyed music and going to education. We observed two people who were at ease with staff. They appeared to enjoy staff attention and were comfortable in their care. Staff communicated to people verbally but did not always support people to promote communication skills. We spoke with family members who gave mixed feedback about the care and support. Some family members felt there could be improvements in communication and activities for people living at the home while others said they felt their relation was thriving. Complaints were investigated and responded to. An easy read complaints process was in place. People were able to give feedback at meetings, but it was not clear how the feedback was obtained.