Martins House

Updated 19 October 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 25 July and 02 August 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone using this type of service. The expert used for this inspection had experience of a family member using this type of service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information available to us about the service such as information from the local authority, and notifications submitted to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We spoke with the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams and asked for their views about the care provided at Martins House.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

During the inspection we spoke with ten people, four people’s relatives, seven staff members, the deputy manager, the registered manager and two members of the providers senior management team.

We reviewed the care records and risk assessments of three people who used the service to ensure these were reflective of people’s current needs. We also reviewed additional information on how relating to the quality of the service provided to people and how this was monitored.

Updated 19 October 2018

This was the first inspection of Martins House under the new provider GCH (Hertfordshire). GCH (Martins House) was changed as a legal entity to GCH (Hertfordshire) in June 2017 but had remained part of the Gold Care Homes group.

This inspection was carried out on the 25 July and 02 August 2018.

Martins House is a ‘care home’. 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. They are registered to provide accommodation nursing and personal care to 60 older people some of whom may live with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 53 people living in the home.

The home had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Martins House. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes and when to report concerns to the registered manager, or when to confidentially raise concerns through whistleblowing. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people`s needs and were knowledgeable about risk management and how to mitigate risks to keep people safe. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who responded in a timely manner to people when they required assistance. People were given their medicines as the prescriber intended and medicines were managed safely. People lived in a clean and hygienic environment.

People were supported by a staff team who had been trained appropriately and who were supported by their line manager. People’s consent was obtained prior to care being provided and staff explained to people what they were consenting to. Where people were unable to provide consent the legal requirements were understood by staff and followed.

People were supported to have sufficient food and drinks. People had access to healthcare professionals such as their GP as and when required.

People felt that they were treated as individuals and they mattered. The care people received was personalised and that staff paid close attention to the needs of the people they supported.

People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their hobbies and interests and try new things. There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with dignity, respect and supporting people to remain as independent as possible. People and the staff knew each other well and these relationships were valued by people who used the service. People nearing the end of their life and their families received a good level of care and support.

People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in the development and the review of their care and support plans. Support plans were comprehensive and captured people’s support needs as well as their preferences regarding the care they received. Care plans were updated every time a change occurred which influenced the way people received support. People were supported to take decisions about their care and be independent. People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their hobbies and interests and try new things.

The registered manager and the provider carried out a regular programme of audits to assess the quality of the service, and we saw that these were capable of identifying shortfalls which needed to be addressed. Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly. People felt the registered manager was approachable and staff felt the registered manager listened to their views and was responsive. A range of meetings were held so people and staff were able to share their views about the quality of care provided. People’s care records were accurately maintained.