You are here

Moor Allerton Care Centre Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 June 2018

This inspection took place on 12 and 13 April 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. The second day was announced.

Moor Allerton Care Centre is a domiciliary care agency a complex of two houses called Rose Court and Yew Tree Court. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Moor Allerton Care Centre services receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 40 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Some people who used the service did not have capacity to make decisions. We found not all people had a completed mental capacity assessment in place when this was required. The registered manager had not received training on how to complete the assessment forms. We recommended the provider research the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure best practice.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. There was a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy which staff followed.

Accident and incidents were managed effectively and actions taken to avoid re occurrences. Risk assessments were in place to keep people safe and reviewed regularly.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and robust systems were in place to recruit new staff. Staff received training to ensure they can meet people’s needs and completed regular updates. Staff told us they felt supported and had regular supervisions and annual appraisals.

Medicines were managed safely and protocols were in place for when ‘as required’ medicines were administered. Staff followed the provider’s policy that ensured people always received their medicines and this was recorded.

People living in the home had positive relationships with the staff. They told us staff were kind and caring.

Care plans were person centred and individualised to meet people’s needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and people were involved with their care planning. People using the service were given explanations by staff about their care and encouraged to be independent.

People were offered choices about their care and there was useful contacts available for advocacy services should people wish to have further support to help them make decisions.

People were supported with their nutritional needs and health care professionals were involved in peoples care when needed.

Complaints were managed effectively and people and staff told us they felt confident to raise any concerns and that they would be managed promptly. The provider had also received a number of compliments.

There was a registered manager in post who was visible and people knew who they were.

The provider had developed strong community links which gave people options of activities, access to places and reduced social isolation.

Surveys were provided to people, to gather their views of the service. The quality of care was monitored through governance systems and audits which highlighted where improvements were needed.

Inspection areas



Updated 2 June 2018

This service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

People felt safe and were protected from avoidable harm. Effective systems were in place to manage safeguarding concerns.

All but one risk assessment we reviewed had been completed and updated regularly to reflect people�s needs. Accident and incidents were managed and actions taken to prevent re occurrences.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people�s needs and recruitment processes were robust.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 June 2018

This service was not always effective.

Not all capacity assessments had been completed to show when a person lacked capacity.

New staff received an induction and staff completed regular training. Staff were supported with supervisions and annual appraisals.

People were supported to access health care services and received appropriate support with their nutritional needs.



Updated 2 June 2018

This service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, dignity, privacy and respect.

Staff provided explanations to people about their care and involved them in decision making.

Care records detailed peoples wishes and preferences around their care and treatment provided.

People were encouraged to be independent as possible.



Updated 2 June 2018

This service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed and appropriate care plans were in place. These contained information about people's individual needs and were regularly reviewed.

The provider offered activities to those receiving care to prevent social isolation.

Complaints were managed effectively with actions taken and lessons learnt.



Updated 2 June 2018

The service was well-led.

People and staff spoke positively about the service and the care received.

People�s views were sought annually and the provider had received positive feedback.

The service was monitored, when shortfalls were found action was taken to maintain or improve the service.

The provider had community links so people had access to other services and facilities.