You are here

Archived: Moor House Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 12 September 2017

During a routine inspection

Moor House Residential Care Home is a 24 bedded residential care home. There were 20 people living at the home on the day of our inspection.

At the last inspection on 19 March 2015 the service was rated ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good.’

People continued to be kept safe at Moor House Residential Care Home because staff were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and the processes to follow when they suspected abuse. The provider continued to follow safe recruitment practices that ensured only suitable staff were employed at the home. Risk assessments were in place that enabled people to remain safe and provided guidance to staff about the risks and how to maintain people’s safety. Records of accidents and incidents were maintained and actions to help to prevent the re-occurrence of these had been implemented. There were sufficient numbers of staff to attend to the needs of people. Medicines were managed and stored safely and people received their medicines on time and as prescribed by their GP.

Staff continued to receive training, regular supervision (one to one meeting) and annual appraisals that helped them to perform their duties. Where there were restrictions in place, staff had followed the legal requirements to make sure this was done in the person’s best interests. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure decisions were made for people in the least restrictive way. Staff supported people to eat a variety of freshly prepared foods and all dietary requirements were met. People had access to all external healthcare professionals and their involvement was sought by staff to help maintain good health.

Staff showed kindness and compassion to people and respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were able to choose how they spent their time, could freely access all communal areas of the home and their personal care needs were attended to in private. People’s relatives and visitors were welcomed and there were no restrictions of times of visits.

Documentation that enabled staff to support people and to record the care they had received was up to date and continued to be regularly reviewed. People and their relatives were involved in the reviewing of their care. People took part in a variety of activities that interested them. A complaints procedure was available to people, relatives and visitors. Complaints received had been resolved in accordance with provider’s complaints policy.

Staff and the provider undertook quality assurance audits to ensure the care provided was of a standard people should expect. The provider had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of care and treatment provided at the home. People and staff were provided with opportunities to put forward their views about how the home was run during residents, relatives and staff meetings.

Inspection carried out on 18 and 19 March 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection of Moor House Residential Care Home took place on 18 and 19 March 2015 and was unannounced. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to look at the overall quality of the service. The previous inspection was carried out on 21 February 2014 and found that the provider had met the standards required.

Moor House is a residential care home and provides care and support for up to 25 people, some whom are living with brain impairment, dementia or mobility issues. At the time of our visit there were 20 people living at Moor House. People who live at Moor House have their own rooms and access to a variety of communal facilities such as the lounge, dining room, and a library/computer room. There is a passenger lift available to allow access to the upper floor, and spacious gardens for the enjoyment of residents.

At the time of our visit 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 by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their assessed needs. However there were insufficient staff deployed at night which had an impact on the care provided. People told us they felt were safe at the home, one person told us, “I have been very safe here.” Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff commenced work. Staff worked within good practice guidelines to ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted a good quality of life. Medicines were managed safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP.

People had enough to eat and drink throughout the day and night and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The home worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was proactive in referring people for treatment.

Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People told us, “The staff are very friendly and kind.” “They are nice girls and hardworking.” People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s relatives and friends were able to visit. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted. Staff told us they always made sure they respected people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care. The home was organised to meet people’s changing needs. People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis.

People told us if they had any issues they would speak to the staff or the registered manager. A person told us, “I’ve never complained, but would if something was not right.” People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the service and there were different ways for their voice to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the service provision.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation with the activities, interests and hobbies they were involved with. Staff supported people with their interests and religious beliefs in their local community. Religious services were conducted weekly at the home.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people’s involvement in the improvement of the service. People’s care and welfare was monitored regularly to make sure their needs were met within a safe environment. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Management obtained guidance and best practice techniques from external agencies and professional bodies.

People told us the staff were friendly and management were always visible and approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the service. Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager. Staff told us the manager of the home was very good and very supportive; some of the staff stated that at difficult times, such as when people’s behaviour was challenging or when people were receiving end of life care, they did not always get the support they needed.

Inspection carried out on 21 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We visited Moor House Residential Care Home to review the care and welfare of people who lived there. During the inspection we interviewed six residents, one relative, and one visiting health professional. We also corresponded with a social care professional from the local authority who had reviewed clients at the home, and also received a report from the Surrey County Council Quality Assurance Manager responsible for assessing Moor House.

People told us staff always asked permission before they carried out any care tasks and offered them choices, for example about what care people wished to receive, and how they wished to spend their day. A visiting health professional told us "People who live here are given choices, and the staff are very on the ball."

We noted there were good relationships with other health and social care professionals, and the recent flooding emergency in the area showed how the home had worked well with a variety of agencies to promote the well being of residents.

The premises were well kept and there were no concerns from residents about their rooms, or the home in general. People told us staff appeared well trained for their work, and no-one we spoke to had any complaints about the home. Positive comments included "Staff are very pleasant" and "I would recommend Moor House for everything."

Inspection carried out on 7 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to five people. People told us they were �quite at home,� and that they enjoyed living in the home. People told us they were comfortable to raise concerns with the carers or the registered manager. People we spoke to said that the staff were "very nice� and said they were �very good, very friendly.� One person told us she could �have a laugh with the staff.� People told us about activities they enjoyed including indoor bowls, playing cards and painting. We observed that people knew about the activity schedule and we saw some people carried a copy of it with them.

We reviewed the care files of four people who used the service. We observed that staff respected and involved people. People�s needs were accurately assessed and reflected in their individual care file. Staff in the home had received training in safeguarding. We saw that staff worked together as a team. We observed standards in place for cleanliness and infection control. The provider assessed and monitored the quality of care that people received.

Inspection carried out on 2, 15 February 2011

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they were involved in the planning of their care; that their named care worker discussed their support options and treatments with them and their family. People said they were provided with the service user guide and a contract of residency, outlining costs and services which either they or their relatives signed.

One person informed us they would like an advocate to visit them as they felt they needed outside contact and to have someone to talk with for longer periods than staff were able to spend with them.

People who used the service told us that they were able to visit and spent time at the service before making an informed decision that the service could meet their needs.

People who used the service told us they were able to make choices in their meals and could have a cooked breakfast if they wanted. People said the food is mainly good and the servings are ok. However, during the lunch period five people complained to us that the roast beef was too tough to chew and they were not enjoying this meal.

People who used the service told us they felt safe in the service and they knew whom to speak to if they felt uncomfortable with a situation.

People who used the service told us the home was generally clean and tidy. Their laundry is taken and returned the same day. They told us the water was of a suitable temperature and they could have a shower or bath as requested.

People who used the service told us they were given their medication at the right time by staff. Their medication is requested by their GP and when changes or new medication are needed the GP and the manager both explain the changes to them and their family.

People who used the service told us their views were sought about the service delivery and their comments were taken into consideration and acted upon.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)