Archived: Martin House

Updated 10 November 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 16 and 18 October 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We told the provider we would be returning on the second day.

On 16 October 2018, the Inspection team consisted of two inspectors, a member of the CQC medicines team, a nurse specialist professional advisor and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

On 18 October 2018, the inspection visit was carried out by two inspectors.

This service was selected to be part of our national review, looking at the quality of oral health care support for people living in care homes. The inspection team included a dental inspector who looked in detail at how well the service supported people with their oral health. This includes support with oral hygiene and access to dentists. We will publish our national report of our findings and recommendations in 2019. The findings of the dental inspector are not included in this report.

Before the inspection visit we looked at all the information we held about the service. This included information from members of the public, commissioners and notifications from the provider. Notifications are for certain changes, events and incidents affecting the service or the people who use it that providers are required to notify us about.

We also looked at public information, such as the provider's own website, care home review websites, internet searches and reports from the Food Standards Agency.

The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) in August 2018. The PIR 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.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who lived at the service, the registered manager and other staff on duty who included the clinical lead, head of care, nurses, care workers, the activity coordinator, catering, administrative and domestic staff.

We observed how people were being cared for and supported. Our observations included using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not speak with us.

We looked at records used by the provider for managing the service. These included the whole care records for 12 people, the staff recruitment records for six members of staff, records of staff training and support, meeting minutes and quality audits. The member of the CQC medicines team looked at how medicines were being managed, including storage, record keeping and administration. We checked the environment and equipment being used to make sure it was safe.

At the end of the inspection visit we gave feedback about our findings to the registered manager and the provider's head of care.

Updated 10 November 2018

The inspection took place on 16 and 18 October 2018. The visit on the 16 October 2018 was unannounced. We told the provider we would be returning on the 18 October 2018.

In October 2017, the provider merged with another organisation to become a new organisation called Optivo. The new organisation, which is a housing association, became the registered provider of the service. This is the first inspection of the service under the new registration. The management of the service the people who lived there and staff remained the same.

Martin 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. The service is registered for up to 75 older people, some who may be living with the experience of dementia. At the time of the inspection 67 people were living at the service. The London Borough of Ealing funded or partly funded all of the people who lived at the service. This is because they have a contact for of the places there.

The service was divided into five units for up to 15 people each. Three of the units provided nursing care. One of the units where nursing care is provided and one of the other units supported people living with the experience of dementia.

Optivo also managed three other care homes in North West London.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we have rated the service good.

People were happy living at the service. They were involved in planning for their care and their needs were being met. They were cared for by staff who were kind, compassionate and who they had good relationships with. There were opportunities for them to take part in different social activities. There was a varied menu which catered for people's individual needs, including culturally diverse meals.

People had consented to their care and treatment and the provider had worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when they identified that people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about their care.

People received their medicines in a safe way by staff who were trained to understand this area of their care. They were supported to access healthcare services and the staff monitored their health and wellbeing.

The staff were happy working at the service. They felt well supported and had the training and information they needed to care for people safely. There were opportunities for their professional development and they communicated effectively with one another.

People lived in a safe and well-maintained environment. Equipment and the environment were kept clean and there were procedures for controlling the spread of infection. People had access to the equipment they needed to keep them safe.

The provider had effective systems to ensure that complaints, accidents and incidents were appropriately dealt with and investigated. There were procedures for safeguarding and whistleblowing. The staff had information and training about these. There were systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service, which included regular visits by the provider's senior managers. The registered manager had worked at the service since it first opened and people using the service, their visitors and staff told us that they were approachable and proactive in making the right decisions to provide a good quality service.