You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 April 2017

We carried out this unannounced comprehensive inspection on 01 and 02 March 2017. This inspection was undertaken to ensure improvements that were required to meet legal requirements had been implemented by the service following our last inspection on 03 June 2016.

At the previous inspection improvements were required to ensure medicines were managed safely and this was a continued breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, with regards to safe care and treatment. At this comprehensive inspection on 01 and 02 March 2017 we found improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirements previously identified at the inspection on 03 June 2016.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. There were appropriate risk assessments in place with guidance on how to minimise risk.

We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service during the day. People felt staff were kind and considerate.

Recruitment of staff was robust and there were sufficient staff to attend to people’s needs.

Medication policies were appropriate, comprehensive and medicines were administered, stored, ordered and disposed of safely. Safeguarding policies were in place and staff had an understanding of the issues and procedures.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met appropriately and they were given choices with regard to food and drinks. Staff responded and supported people with dementia care needs appropriately. Care plans included appropriate personal and health information and were up to date.

People’s health needs were responded to promptly and professionals contacted appropriately. Records included information about people’s likes and dislikes and we observed that people had choices, for example, about when to get up, what to do and when and where to eat.

Staff were caring and kind with the people they supported. Throughout the inspection we observed staff members to be kind, patient and caring whilst delivering care.

People and relatives told us they were involved in making decisions about their care and were listened to by the service.

We saw people being treated with kindness and respect and when support was provided, such as supporting people eating their lunch time meal.

We found the service aimed to embed equality and human rights through well-developed person-centred care planning which ensured that each person had a person-centred plan in their care files.

People were involved in developing their care plan and sensitive information was being handled carefully.

The service had a service user’s handbook called Moorfield House Service User Guide which was given to each person who used the service in addition to the Statement of Purpose.

The service followed the Six Steps programme in end of life care and were supported by relevant community professionals.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke positively about how the service was managed.

Staff told us they felt there was an open, transparent and supportive culture within the home and would have no hesitation in approaching the manager about any concerns.

The service undertook a range of audits of the service to ensure different aspects of the service were meeting the required standards.

There was a business continuity plan in place that identified actions to be taken in the event of an unforeseen event.

Throughout the course of the inspection we saw the registered manager walking around and observing and supporting staff.

Residents and relatives meetings were undertaken approximately every three months and comments from people who used the service were positive.

The service worked alongside other professionals and agencies in order to meet people’s care requirements where required.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 April 2017

The service was safe.

People who used the service, their relatives and professionals told us they felt the service was safe.

There were appropriate risk assessments in place with guidance on how to minimise risk. Safeguarding policies were in place and staff had an

understanding of the issues and procedures.

Recruitment of staff was robust and there were sufficient staff to attend to people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 April 2017

The service was effective.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met appropriately and they were given a choice of food at meal times.

Care plans included appropriate personal and health information and were up to date.

The home worked within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 1 April 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their relatives told us the staff were caring and kind.

Staff interacted with people in a kind and considerate manner, ensuring people’s dignity and privacy was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were person centred and contained information about their preferences and wishes.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure and complaints were

followed up appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 April 2017

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post.

People told us the management were approachable and supportive. Staff supervisions and appraisals were undertaken regularly.

A number of audits were carried out where issues were identified and action was taken.