You are here

Archived: Moorside Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 25 July 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 25 and 26 July 2016 and was unannounced. Moorside is a care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 27 older people who require nursing or personal care and the treatment of disorder, disease or injury. The home provides care for people living with dementia and includes a day centre facility and short stay respite care for people living in the community. Moorside is located close to the centre of Winchester and the accommodation is arranged into three ‘clusters’ for up to eight people. Each cluster has a separate dining room, lounge and kitchenette. This provides people with a small and homely environment within the larger home. There is an attractive garden to the rear of the home which backs onto the river and a large day centre and activities room on the ground floor. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people living in the service.

A registered manager was in post at the time of 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.

People told us they felt ‘safe’ living at Moorside. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people from abuse and understood how to report their concerns. The registered manager acted on concerns to keep people safe and used learning from incidents to prevent a reoccurrence. People were cared for safely.

People were supported to be as independent as possible and risks to their health and wellbeing were assessed. This included risks to people from falls and behaviours which may challenge others. Staff understood how to support people to manage risks and acted to prevent people from experiencing harm.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. People were supported by nursing and care staff on each cluster to ensure the appropriate mix of staff skills were available to meet their needs. We observed staff had enough time to spend with people to meet their needs in a patient and meaningful way. The provider carried out the appropriate pre-employment checks to confirm people were supported by staff who were suitable for their role.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Nursing staff administered people medicines and were regularly assessed as competent to do so by the deputy matron. When a medication error had occurred the registered manager reviewed procedures with the nursing staff to enable them to learn from the incident. Prompt action was taken with staff to rectify some recording errors we found and a procedure put in place to prevent a reoccurrence. Guidance was available and used by staff to ensure people had medicines prescribed ‘as required’ when they needed them. This included pain relief when people may not be able to verbalise their need for this.

Staff completed an induction and on-going training in their role to enable them to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff communicated well during daily handovers to keep each other informed about changes to people’s needs, their progress and any concerns. The registered manager attended handover and facilitated discussion to help staff think through their responses to meeting people’s needs. Staff shared their skills and experience to support each other’s learning and provide effective care for the people they supported.

Decisions about people’s care when they lacked mental capacity were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). When it was deemed to be in people’s best interest to restrict their freedom to keep them safe their rights were protected by an application for a Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) safeguard. Not all decisions made in people’s best interests had been recorded; however the registered manager took immediate steps to implemen

Inspection carried out on 6 December 2013

During a themed inspection looking at Dementia Services

There were 25 people living at Moorside on the day of our visit all of whom had been assessed as having a form of dementia. Most people had lived at Moorside for some time and their degree of dementia had increased. This meant that most could not talk to us about their experiences of the quality of their treatment and care.

We spoke with, and observed the care provided in communal areas to nine residents, We also spoke with five visitors, eight staff and with the manager. Seven relatives provided written feedback following our visit.

People were very satisfied with the care support and treatment provided. Relatives said, for example: "This is an excellent care home and I feel the residents are loved and respected," "The home has always done its very best for my sister in law," "Staff are excellent," and " I was very concerned that no one could look after her (their wife) as I could. I should not have worried.The care provided at Moorside is excellent."

We agreed with relatives views and we observed throughout our visit that care was provided in a thoughtful and compassionate way.

We found that the service assessed, planned and delivered care for people with dementia in a considered and sensitive way. They cooperated effectively with other providers to ensure that the safety and welfare of people was protected when their health care needs changed or when they moved between different services. The service was well led and continually assessed the quality of the care provided.

Inspection carried out on 16 November 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with three people who lived at Moorside and spent time observing the interactions between staff and people who lived there. We also spoke with three relatives and four staff. People told us that they were well treated by staff and that they liked the home. One person said "It's nice to be warm and secure" We observed staff responding to people positively and taking time to ensure that they had choices about what to eat and what activities to do.

People's health, care and welfare needs were recorded accurately and staff had a good understanding about what support people required. The good ratio of staff to people who lived at Moorside meant that staff could respond quickly to each individual when they needed assistance or support. It also meant that people had some opportunity to be involved in local community events.

People said that they felt safe in the home and said that they were confident that any concerns they had would be addressed by the manager.

Staff told us that the training and support that they received enabled them to do their job effectively.

There were good quality monitoring systems in place. This meant that the service was operating effectively, assessing and managing the needs of the people using the service. Regular support was also offered to relatives of people who lived at Moorside.

Inspection carried out on 25 January 2011

During a routine inspection

The residents appeared relaxed and comfortable in this home as they were moving around freely, talking with staff and taking part in their chosen activities or resting in their rooms.

The residents’ relatives told us that they liked the staff and most of them said there were enough staff to meet the residents’ needs. One comment from a relative summed up the views of the six relatives we spoke to by saying ‘this home is a friendly, relaxed and homely place’.

The relatives told us that the home was safe but the relatives varied in their opinions about the food at the home.

The relatives said that they knew how to complain if they needed to and they could always ask the staff about any issues.

The community psychiatric nurse we spoke with told us that the staff always sought their advice and the care in the home was ‘second to none’.