We carried out a review of the data available to us about Moorfields Lodge 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 Moorfields Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The home was accessing the government testing scheme. Staff put systems in place to support and reassure people with the testing process.
The home was clean and well ventilated.
Pictorial signs reminded people and staff of the infection control procedures to follow to ensure their safety. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.
Staff were creative in supporting people to maintain their preferred routines and interests within the COVID-19 restrictions.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through regular video calls.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Moorfields Lodge is a small residential care home providing personal and nursing care to four people with learning disabilities and autism at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to five people.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The ethos of the organisation was to enable people to have as much independence, choice and control as possible. We saw many examples of people leading the life of their choice and being able to influence that daily. Relatives told us without exception, how caring and respectful the registered manager and staff were not only to people living in the home but also their relatives. Staff went above and beyond to ensure people were able to communicate their wishes and ‘have a voice’.
People's care records were detailed and personalised to meet individual needs. Staff understood people's needs and responded when needed. When people were not able to be fully involved with their support plans, family members and friends supported staff to complete and review people's support plans. People's preferences were sought and respected.
People had staff support to access activities and holidays. This was flexible and provided in response to people's choices. Staff knew people’s communication needs, they had received training in how to support people with different communication needs.
People were supported by a service that was well managed. Records were accessible and up to date. The service was audited, and action taken to address any areas identified that needed improving. Relatives were complimentary of the management of the service with one commenting; "You couldn’t ask for a better place." Staff were committed to providing good outcomes for people.
People's known risks were assessed and managed to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to report any concerns relating to people's safety. Staff had good knowledge of people's preferences and used these to support people safely.
Medicines were managed safely, people received their medicines when needed. Staff received an induction and ongoing training and felt supported by the registered manager. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Infection control measures were in place to prevent cross infection. Systems were in place to deal with concerns and complaints.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection - The last rating for this service was good (published 23 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last comprehensive inspection in October 2014, the service was rated ‘Good’ overall, and each of the individual domains. At this inspection we found the improvements had been sustained and rated the service as ‘Good’ overall and in each of the five domains.
Why the service is rated good.
People were safe living in the home. Safeguarding procedures were in place which were well understood by staff. Following safeguarding incidents, appropriate action had been taken to investigate and learn lessons. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear and detailed plans of care put in place. Staff were knowledgeable about these plans giving us assurance they were followed. Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.
There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to ensure people received prompt care and support and access to a range of activities. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Overall, we concluded staff had the right skills and knowledge to care for people. Staff received a range of training relevant to their role. Some relatives felt some staff required further training in autism, we saw further training was planned in the coming months.
The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). 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. Staff sought consent before supporting people.
People’s healthcare needs were assessed and detailed plans of care put in place. People had access to a range of health professionals and the service sought to reduce people’s distress to a minimum when planning health interventions.
Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people well. We saw staff interacted positively with people, using an appropriate mixture of verbal and non-verbal communication techniques.
We saw good positive relationships had developed between people and staff. Staff knew people well and their individual likes and preferences. However some relatives said staff turnover was a barrier to relationships being maintained over a longer period of time.
People received good quality care that met their individual needs and preferences. Detailed care planning took place and staff were familiar with people’s care needs. People were supported to achieve goals to build their independence and confidence. This included participating in a range of activities.
Staff and relatives said the registered manager was approachable and they felt able to raise any concerns or complaints with them. We found a positive and inclusive culture within the home which revolved around giving people choice and control over their daily lives.
Systems to check, monitor and improve the service were in place. People’s feedback was sought through informal and formal means and used to make improvements to the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
We carried out this inspection at Moorfields Lodge on 23 October 2014. Moorfields Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and care for people with learning disabilities. The home is a large Victorian detached house in Haworth, close to the village amenities and within easy reach of Keighley Town centre. On the date of the inspection 4 people were living in the home.
A registered manager was in place. 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.
Feedback regarding the quality of the service was positive from people, their relatives, and care professionals. They all told us the service met people’s needs and encouraged them do as much as they could for themselves. They also said the service was good at dealing with any risks which emerged.
We found a choice of meals was on offer based on people’s preferences. People told us the food is nice with good portions. We found people’s healthcare needs were met and care professionals told us they have good communication with the service.
Systems were in place to ensure medicines were safely managed. The premises were maintained to an appropriate standard to keep people safe.
People and their relatives reported staff were caring and respectful and treated them well. This was confirmed by our observations on the day of the inspection.
Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and how to ensure the rights of people with limited mental capacity when making decisions was respected. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
We found care records were person centred for each individual. People’s plans included specific information staff needed to be aware of before working with that person. Plans had people’s likes and dislikes as well as any of their history. This helped staff get to know people using the service and build up a professional relationship with them.
Relatives and staff told us the registered manager was very helpful and said they believed they would take concerns seriously. Systems were in place to continuously improve the quality of the service. This included a programme of audits and satisfaction questionnaires. We saw complaints were appropriately recorded, managed and responded to.