Morton Gardens LTD

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 4 July 2024 (assessment visit 13 May 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   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.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   People were involved in assessing their needs and able to state their choices and preferences for how their care and support was provided. People’s care and support was planned and delivered in line with current practice, legislation and standards. Staff understood how people’s needs should be met. They worked well with each other and partners to make sure people experienced positive outcomes in relation to their care and support needs. Staff supported people to stay healthy and well. They monitored people’s health and wellbeing and made sure people received timely support if they became unwell or needed extra support from professionals with their healthcare needs. Managers reviewed the care and support people received to make sure this remained effective and helping people achieve positive outcomes. The provider had improved their arrangements and was now working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   People were supported to have choice and control and to make decisions about how their support was provided. They were encouraged and helped by staff to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain their independence. People were supported to understand their rights and how the service would make sure these were respected. People’s friends and families were free to visit them with no restrictions. People were encouraged to take part in a wide range of activities both at the service and in the community which helped support their independence, health and wellbeing.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   People using the service were treated equally and fairly. Staff understood people’s equality and human rights and how these should be upheld and respected when providing them with care and support. Managers supported staff to deliver care and support that did not discriminate against people. Staff were provided with training to help them reduce the risk of people not receiving the care and support they were entitled to, due to their specific needs. Managers were alert to barriers and challenges that people might experience and used this to plan and deliver care and support to people, which met their needs in relation to their protected characteristics.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   The service was managed well. Staff and managers understood their role and responsibility to deliver the provider’s vision of people receiving high quality care. Staff were well supported by managers, who were knowledgeable, experienced and respected by people, staff and partners that worked with the service. There was a culture of openness and honesty and people, staff and others could raise concerns without fear of what might happen. Staff were provided fair and equal opportunity at work and were valued and respected by managers. The service worked proactively with partners which led to people experiencing positive outcomes. Managers sought feedback from people, staff and others about how the service could be improved. Managers used their feedback, and other learning, to make improvements to the service that people required. Governance systems had been improved to incorporate more robust checks of people’s care records and managers undertook a range of checks and audits to check the safety and quality of the service and care and support provided to people. However, checks of the service had not found that the service’s recruitment process was not always being followed to ensure these remained safe. The provider took action after our site visit to make the necessary improvement required to make sure there was regular and effective oversight of recruitment practice at the service.