Morton Gardens LTD

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

People were protected from the risk of abuse or harm. Staff understood their duty to safeguard people and what action to take to make sure people would be protected. Safety risks to people were managed well and staff understood how to reduce these risks to keep people safe from injury or harm. Staffing levels were reviewed regularly to make sure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to support people. Staff received relevant training to meet people’s needs. They were well supported through supervision and appraisal to continuously learn and improve their working practice. However, managers had not always followed the service’s recruitment process to ensure these remained robust and only suitable staff were employed to work for the service. The provider took action after our site visit to make the necessary improvement required to ensure recruitment practice was safe at the service.

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 were supported to live in safety because staff protected people from the risk of abuse. People could not talk with us due to their specific communication needs. However, feedback we received from relatives about people’s experiences, indicated people were safe, happy and comfortable using the service. Relatives were confident the provider would take prompt action should any concerns about people’s safety arise. A relative told us, “From what I can perceive [family member] is very safe there. [Registered manager] has a moral compass and is well grounded so I think she would do the right thing by [family member] and look out for them and make sure they are treated well.”

Staff understood their duty and responsibility to safeguard people from abuse. A staff member told us, “I would look for signs like marks on people or changes in behaviour. As we work with people daily you can see something different straight away.” Another staff member said, “You have to safeguard people. It’s about being observant to things that are not quite right or look wrong and letting the manager know. Or if they don’t do anything I would tell the Council or Police.” Managers supported staff to take appropriate action to safeguard people from abuse. The registered manager told us, “At all meetings, we remind staff about safeguarding and we will ask them if they have concerns. All the staff have had training as well. I encourage them to report anything unusual or of concern to them so I can take the right action.”

Systems were in place to support people and staff to identify and report safeguarding concerns in a timely way, to the relevant agencies. The registered manager understood their duty and responsibility to work in line with the service’s policy and procedure for safeguarding people. This included making timely referrals and working proactively with the relevant agencies. The registered manger confirmed there had been no recent safeguarding concerns about people.

People were supported to stay safe and do the things that mattered to them. This was because risks to their safety and wellbeing at home and in the community, were managed well by staff. A relative told us, “[Family member] is very safe there and they do keep [family member] safe when they are looking after them at the house. [Staff are] very good when [family member’s] out and about as well. They are very observant.”

Staff knew how to manage risks to people and made sure people understood how they would be supported to stay safe. A staff member told us, “I can’t leave [person using the service] in situations that put them at risk. I support them to move safely around the home and in the community. I follow the risk plan in their records…I talk to [person using the service] and communicate that there is a risk and they understand. For example, when [person using the service] is about to move into the kitchen when people are cooking I will let them know and then they move away.”

Systems were in place to regularly assess, monitor and review risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. This information was used to inform guidance for staff about the actions they should take to keep people safe. People’s records were current and up to date with information about risks to their safety and wellbeing. People and those involved in their care, had been supported to make decisions about risks to their safety and wellbeing and how these would be managed.

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

People were supported by a skilled and experienced staff team. People knew staff well and were comfortable and happy to be supported by them. A relative told us, “I think [family member] is happy there and they like the carers. [Family member] has their own dedicated key worker and she is very good. I like her and [family member] likes her.”

Staff received relevant training and regular supervision to help them provide safe and effective care to people. A staff member told us, “I use a lot of equipment and I’ve had training to use it.” Managers supported staff to learn and improve in their role. The registered manager told us, “I make sure staff get regular training….staff are up to date with their training. We also do supervision with staff every 3 to 4 months. But working with staff on a day to day basis means I work closely with them and can support them.” There were enough staff to provide consistent support to people. The registered manager told us, “We have no staff vacancies at the moment. We have a good pool of long term staff that we can rely on, who know people well.” Staff worked well together as a team and had enough time to support people with their care and support needs. A staff member told us, “I’m not rushed because I know what I’m doing and I know people really well and their routines.”

Managers had not always followed the service’s recruitment process to ensure only suitable staff were employed. Following a review of staff records we found a full work history had not been obtained for one staff member to enable managers to fully assess their fitness and suitability for the role. We discussed this with the registered manager who acknowledged this was an error and took action immediately after our site visit to collect and review this information. The registered manager provided assurances that recruitment processes had been updated to ensure this issue would not occur again. Systems were in place to review staffing levels to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Training records showed staff attended relevant courses to support them to meet people’s needs. Training was refreshed at regular intervals so that staff stayed up to date with current practice. Supervision records confirmed staff had supervision meetings with managers to support them in their role and to identify any further training or learning they might need.

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.