You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

This inspection visit took place on 5 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Moorland House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Moorland House is registered to provide care and accommodation for 48 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 44 people living there. Moorland House, changed from a nursing home to a care home in November 2017, and no longer provides care and accommodation to people who require nursing care.

The registered manager had been in post since November 2017. 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.

The service was safe. Appropriate checks and assessments of staff were completed to ensure they were safe to care for people. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and the policies in place supported this. Risk assessments were in place and identified people who required additional support for some or all of their daily living activities. Medicines were mostly managed safely; and there were processes in place that prevented the spread of infection.

The service was effective. People’s needs were assessed and used to develop personalised care plans. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff had relevant training, skills and knowledge to care for people’s individual needs; and teams worked together across the service to ensure people received safe and effective care. People were supported to live healthy lifestyles and had sufficient to eat and drink. The building was designed to provide a safe living environment with a variety of private and communal spaces, both indoors and outside; where people were able to spend time alone, with friends or with family.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The service was caring. Staff were kind, compassionate and caring and they developed positive and professional relationships with people. They cared for people with respect and promoted their dignity and independence. Family and visitors were made to feel welcome and were encouraged to spend time with their loved ones. People were encouraged to express their views about their daily care and preferences for daily living.

The service was responsive. Staff took time to get to know people, their histories and their aspirations and used this to promote their wellbeing and emotional health. Staff understood people’s individual care needs, preferences and responded positively, when people needed assistance. People felt able to make comments, complaints and suggestions and we found these were acted upon by the staff and registered manager. People received dignified care and support at the end of their life, where families were encouraged to visit and spend time with loved ones.

We found aspects of the service that were not always well led.

The provider, Methodist Homes had not always consulted with staff or people when it made changes to how the service was delivered. Recent changes to the rota had taken place without prior consultation with staff or discussion about impact on people. The service had also recently stopped providing nursing care and had only consulted the four people who were receiving nursing care at that time. It had not consulted all the people in the home, whose needs may change in th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was safe.

Pre-employment checks were completed before new staff cared for people. Staff understood how to keep people safe from abuse. Risks to people were identified and managed within their care plans.

Medicines were managed safely; and processes were in place for the prevention and management of infection within the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received on-going training to ensure people received personalised and effective care, which considered their choice and preferences.

People had a nutritious and balanced diet and access to healthcare services.

Information was shared appropriately and effectively to ensure people received consistent care.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and compassionate.

People and their families (where appropriate), were included in making decisions about their care and daily activities.

People and staff developed positive relationships based on dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff clearly understood people�s preferences and choices.

The registered manager sought feedback and used this to improve the service and the care people experienced.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to ensure that people received dignified care and treatment when they approached the end of their life.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 June 2018

The service was not always well-led.

The culture of the organisation was not always open and inclusive. We found the provider sometimes made changes to how care was delivered without full consultation of staff or the people it affected.

The systems and processes in place ensured risks to people were identified; performance was monitored and the quality of care was assessed.

The registered manager had the knowledge and skills to develop the staff and improve the quality of the service.