CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Morton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were generally identified and managed. However, inspectors found medicine management issues, ineffective medicine audits and fire evacuations that were not taking place as frequently as the provider's policy required.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and support needs were assessed and staff had suitable training. Regular one-to-one staff supervision was not taking place, and the building did not fully meet people's changing needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and attentive. People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and kept under review. People had access to activities and community facilities, although staff said more community activities could be possible if more drivers were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had experienced leadership and staff worked well together. Some audit actions were not signed off, resident meetings were less frequent than required, and the last full survey was in 2017.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Morton House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines checks and the building needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors saw kind staff who knew people well and supported their choices, dignity and independence.
There were some shortfalls. Medicines were not always managed in line with best practice, fire evacuations were not happening as often as the provider's policy said, and some checks and records were not completed consistently. The home was also described as outdated, with refurbishment planned.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff knew people well and treated them with respect.
“Staff were attentive, enabling, supportive, encouraging, engaging and communicated appropriately with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and take part in their care. Their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“Throughout the inspection we observed people made their own choices as to when to get up, what to eat and drink, what to wear and how they wanted to spend their day.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and communication. They included detailed guidance for epilepsy and positive behaviour support.
“Person centred care was promoted. Each care plan included a photo and summary of what was important to a person, what worked for them and what they needed support with.” from the report
Established staff team
There was a long-standing staff team with good knowledge of the people living in the home. Staffing levels were found to be sufficient.
“The service had an established staff team with one staff vacancy.” from the report
Medicine management
needs fixingSome medicines were taken out in decanted packaging, one as-required medicine lacked a written protocol, and audits had not identified these issues. The problems were addressed during the inspection, but the provider was advised to improve monitoring.
“The service had systems in place to audit medicines management. However, those audits were ineffective and had failed to pick up the issues we found in relation to medicine management.” from the report
Older building
needs fixingInspectors said the bedrooms and shared areas were small and did not easily accommodate people's changing needs or larger equipment. Refurbishment was planned to improve the environment.
“The service is an older building which no longer meets the needs of people living there.” from the report
Fire evacuation frequency
seriousFire evacuations were not taking place as often as the provider's policy required. After the inspection, a further evacuation and a tracking system were confirmed.
“However, fire evacuations were not taking place at the frequency outlined in the providers policy which had the potential to put people at risk.” from the report
Management records
minorSome audit actions were not signed off, and resident meetings and surveys did not happen as often as the provider's guidance required. The manager agreed to address these points.
“The actions from the peer audit were being addressed, but not signed off to update the progress made in respect of the outstanding actions.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicine arrangements after the inspection, including medicines taken out on day leave?
- 02What written protocols are now in place for as-required medicines, and how are medicine audits checked?
- 03What refurbishment work was planned for the bedrooms and communal areas, and what has been completed?
- 04How often are fire evacuation drills now carried out, and how does the tracking system monitor them?
- 05How often do resident meetings, family feedback and staff supervision now take place?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Morton House is rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in staff supervision, equipment and timely health referrals.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 7 and 8 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, training records and the home itself.
Overall, the home remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in May 2015. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported with personalised care. The home was also judged Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Staff were trained and people’s health and nutrition needs were generally met, but formal supervision was not happening as often as the provider’s policy said, some equipment was not available, and professionals reported delays in health referrals. Staffing was also short at times, especially in the morning, although extra morning staffing was agreed after the inspection.
Kind, respectful care
People and relatives were happy with the care. Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported their choices.
“They were kind, caring, supportive and had open, honest and fun relationships with people.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received their medicines when needed. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, and regular medicine audits were carried out.
“There were safe medication administration systems in place and people received their medicines when required.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s preferences and important relationships. Plans were reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and each file contained information about the person's likes, dislikes and people important to them.” from the report
Active management
The manager was involved in the day-to-day running of the home and was taking action on staffing and environmental issues.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being delivered and the running of the home.” from the report
Morning staffing
needs fixingSome people and staff said staffing levels were too low, particularly in the morning. This meant staff were rushed and some people got up late for reasons that were not their choice.
“Staffing levels were not sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report
Supervision was not frequent enough
needs fixingFormal one-to-one supervision and annual appraisals were taking place, but not as often as the provider’s policy required.
“The registered manager recognised one to one supervisions and appraisals were not happening at the frequency outlined in the organisations policy.” from the report
Equipment needed
needs fixingSome equipment was not suitable or available. Shower chairs needed replacing and the bath needed an overhead hoist to make it accessible.
“However the shower chairs required replacing and the Parker bath required an overhead hoist to make it accessible to people.” from the report
Delays in health referrals
seriousTwo health professionals reported that delays in referrals had contributed to some people’s health deteriorating. Another professional said staff did not always follow care plan guidance consistently.
“Staff managed that as opposed to seeking early intervention” from the report
- 01Has the fifth staff member for 5.5 hours each day remained in place, and has this stopped people getting up late in the morning?
- 02Have the replacement shower chairs been bought and has the overhead hoist for the Parker bath been installed?
- 03How often do staff now receive formal one-to-one supervision and annual appraisals?
- 04How do you make sure all staff follow the guidance in each person’s care plan?
- 05How quickly are changes in people’s health referred to the relevant health professionals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Morton House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.