Morton Close

Safe - This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We rated the service Requires Improvement. Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were not always robustly assessed and systems to learn lessons when things went wrong were not managed consistently. Staff had training in safeguarding, but we found some shortfalls in management reporting. Medicines were not always managed safely but the provider responded promptly and made improvements. Safe recruitment processes were in place and there were enough trained and competent staff to support people. The environment was safe and well-maintained.

Effective - This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We rated the service Good. The provider had a process to assess people before they were admitted. Overall monitoring processes were in place to ensure people received effective care and support. Processes were in place to ensure people’s capacity was assessed and staff demonstrated an understanding of the principles of consent.

Caring - This means we looked for evidence the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We rated the service Good with 1 quality statement in this assessment. People were cared for by staff who knew them well and who demonstrated kind, caring and compassionate values.

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.

Well Led - This means we looked for evidence that service, leadership, management and governance assured high quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. We rated the service Requires Improvement. The provider did not have robust and effective governance arrangements in place and we identified a breach of regulations. People’s care records were not always detailed and up to date. This meant people were at risk of harm and poor care. Staff felt confident to speak up and were positive about the support they received from manager. The manager was new in post and was not registered with CQC. There were improvements over the course of the assessment and the provider worked well with the staff team to promote a shared direction and culture.