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

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills (outcome 14)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff.

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 were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider had secured high standards of care by creating an environment where clinical excellence could do well.

We spoke with three relatives and one person who lived at Moorside, who told us that staff had skills to support people effectively. There was a good ratio of staff to people who lived at the service. This meant that staff were able to respond flexibly to people's varying needs in a timely way. For example, a staff member quickly assisted one person who was generally able to feed themselves but who on one occasion needed additional support with their meal. People who needed additional support because of their levels anxiety were also able to be given prompt assistance and attention.

Staff received appropriate professional development.

New staff received a detailed induction programme based on skills for care training. This meant that they received a comprehensive induction which took account of recognised standards within the care sector. We spoke with three staff who all said that they undertook a broad range of training and that they completed regular updates to ensure that they were competent to fulfil their role. Records of staff training confirmed this.

Staff said that they had received supervision but that this had not been regular. We saw records which showed that night staff in particular had not received regular supervision. However supervision dates had been planned and so there were arrangements in place to address this.

The provider may wish to note that staff appraisals had not been carried out annually. We spoke with the manager who was aware of this and who intended to undertake appraisals in January and February 2013. The reason for the delay was that the manager was relatively new in post.