You are here

Archived: Moorside Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 November 2012
Date of Publication: 8 December 2012
Inspection Report published 8 December 2012 PDF | 80.95 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 November 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care and treatment.

There was information on the internet about Moorside which informed people about the aims and objectives of the service, the facilities provided, admissions procedure and charges. A relative we spoke with confirmed that they had been given plenty of information about the service before their mother moved in. This helped them to make an informed decision that the home would meet their mother's needs.

When we visited, we saw that there was up to date information on display about activities and forthcoming meetings. People said that they were kept well informed of any changes in their relation's health or wellbeing. One person told us that written information contained within their mothers plan of care accurately reflected their mother's needs and wishes.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.

One person who lived at the service told us that staff did enough for them "without doing too much." We observed staff assisting people to eat. They gave appropriate help but encouraged people to feed themselves as much as possible. A visitor said that their relative had improved since moving to Moorside as staff had encouraged them to come out of their room and to take part in regular activities which they enjoyed. Staff we spoke with described how they tried to involve people in local community events as much as possible, for example, they had taken a group of people to see the Christmas lights in the city centre.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected.

Staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of people's likes, interests and preferences. Consideration was given, for example about whether people preferred to be helped by male or female carers. People's dietary preferences were recorded on thier records. Staff knew about them and we saw that people were getting meals that they liked. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful way. For example those that needed help with their meals were not rushed and staff told people what they were about to eat before they gave them each spoonful.

People's religious beliefs were observed. The home had a chapel which was available for use by people who lived at the service, their visitors and by staff.