We carried out a review of the data available to us about Moor Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Moor Court, you can give feedback on this service.
• People enjoyed living at Moor Court and were cared for by staff who were compassionate and considerate.
• Relatives told us their family members independence was promoted and people were treated with dignity and respect.
• People were involved in planning their care with support from staff. Staff used people’s preferred ways of communicating, to facilitate this.
• Staff supported people to enjoy a range of activities which reflected people’s interests, and enhanced their lives. People were given assistance to they could keep in touch with relatives and friends who were important to them.
• People had access to the healthcare they wanted. Relatives and staff highlighted how relationships developed with other health and social care professionals had led to improved health and well-being outcomes for people living at Moor Court.
• People told us they felt safe living at the home. There was sufficient staff to care for people and the environment and equipment were regularly checked, to promote people’s safety.
• Staff had received training and developed the skills they needed to care for people. The risk of accidental harm or infections was reduced as staff used the resources and equipment provided to do this.
• People could rely on staff administering the medicines they needed to remain well.
• The registered managers and staff worked together and focused on meeting the needs of the people living at the home, so they had an enhanced quality of life.
• People and their relatives were encouraged to make any suggestions for improving the care provided and the service futher.
• The registered managers and staff reflected on their practice and strove to drive through improvements in people’s care, so people would continue to say how much they enjoyed living at Moor Court.
• We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report
Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Moor Court was published on 02 July 2016.
About the service: Moor Court is a is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation. There were 14 people living at the home with either learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders, or with physical disability, or sensor impairments, or dementia at the time of the inspection. The service provides accommodation and personal care to younger and older adults.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
We undertook this comprehensive inspection to ensure they had now met their legal requirements.
Moor Court is located in Bodenham, Herefordshire. The service provides accommodation and care for up to 14 people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection, there were 14 people living at the home.
The inspection took place on 2 June 2016 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager at this home, but they were not present on the day of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People’s individual needs were known by staff. Staff knew the support people needed to keep them safe. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their freedom. People were encouraged to take their own medicines where possible. People who needed support with taking their medicines received this from trained and competent staff.
People were offered choices and their independence was promoted. People were supported to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy weight. People were involved in the preparation of their meals and were taught how to prepare meals for themselves. People received specialist input from a range of health professionals to ensure that their health and wellbeing needs were met.
People enjoyed positive relationships with staff. People’s privacy was maintained and they were treated with respect. People’s communication needs were known and staff communicated with people in ways they could understand.
People’s needs were reviewed to ensure they received all the support they needed. People were able to pursue various hobbies and interests, as well as choosing social events and outings for people to enjoy. People knew how to complain as this information was provided to them in a way which was clear to them.
People were involved in the running of their home. The registered manager had an inclusive approach and ensured people received information in different formats. Staff were supported in their roles and were positive about how the home was managed. People enjoyed accessing the local community and led active and varied lives.
The inspection took place on the 23 October 2014 and was unannounced. The provider is registered to provide accommodation for up to 13 people who have a learning disability. There were 13 people living at the home when we visited.
The provider had a registered manager in post but they were not present at our inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The provider had not always ensured the legal requirements around consent and restrictive care practices had been followed. This meant people’s rights were not always being protected.
People enjoyed living at Moor Court and felt safe. They could tell staff and the registered manager if anything was wrong. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and report any suspicion of abuse.
People said their privacy and dignity were respected. They were supported by staff who knew them well and with whom they had positive relationships.
People were not always supported by enough staff. At times the availability of staff limited people doing things they wanted to do and would benefit from. People were not always empowered to be as independent as possible, for example, no one did their own banking or looked after their own medicines.
People were supported to stay in touch with relatives. Their relatives told us they were welcomed when they visited. They found good efforts were made to meet the needs and wishes of their family member. They felt appropriately involved and said staff were efficient and caring.
People had been supported to be involved in choosing, preparing and cooking their meals. Special dietary needs had been provided for.
People were involved in planning their care and supported to express their views. They were assisted to make choices and were given information in a way that helped them to understand it.
People’s support arrangements had not always been kept under regular review. Clear guidance had not been given to staff and as a result people had not always been supported in a consistent way.
People had been supported with their healthcare needs and medicines. They had access to health and social care professionals but advice was not always acted upon quickly enough.
Staff were clear about their role and responsibilities in providing care and support. They felt well trained and supported. Training was monitored and planned in advance.
Quality assurance systems were quite informal and had not identified shortfalls in some areas, for example the pre-employment background checks for new carers. People and staff’s views were sought but some feedback was not always acted upon, for example, people’s wish to go out more often. The registered manager told us of some improvement plans for 2015. People and staff said they were not aware of these.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We found that people were well presented and the staff engaged pleasantly with them seeking their co-operation and consent for daily living tasks and planned activities.
People were provided with a nutritious and interesting diet. They were also encouraged to take part in food and drink preparation.
Suitable systems were in place to support people with their daily medicines.
Staffing levels were adequate to support people and suitable checks were carried out on new staff before they started in post.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and to ensure proper health and safety arrangements were in place.
We found examples which showed that people's diversity, values and human rights were respected.
One person showed us their bedroom which had been nicely personalised. They said, 'I have just got a new mattress, I like my bedroom and I decide who comes in here'. Two people had moved to downstairs bedrooms which better suited their physical needs. One of them told us, 'it is much better for me and I don't have to worry about the stairs anymore'.
The care staff spoke about the people in the home in a caring and respectful way. They understood that people had different needs and could cope with different pressures due to their learning disability or autism. We heard them encourage people to make choices about how to spend their time and what to eat and drink.
The four people we spoke to in more detail about their lives told us they were happy at the home. They said they enjoyed the activities they took part in. We saw people involved in a mixture of activities during the day, such as group table top and watching horseracing.
We saw two people's care plans and care records. This had been based on an assessment of people's wishes, preferences, needs and abilities. Monthly evaluations of the care plan had been carried out and review meetings were held during each year.
The people we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home and could tell care staff or the registered manager if they had any concerns. One person told us, 'I feel safe here, I don't want a key to my bedroom as I don't need to lock it'.
The people we spoke with told us they liked all the care staff and felt there was enough staff to give them the support they needed. The care staff we spoke with were able to tell us about the care and support needs of the people who lived at the home. They were positive about the way the registered manager ran the home and they felt decisions were always in the best interests of the people who lived there.