Moorland House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received person centred care which reflected their individual needs, preferences and choices. Care records described people’s individuality, preferences and life histories, helping staff understand what was important to each person and how they wished to be supported. People and relatives confirmed staff knew them well and respected their choices, including preferences about the gender of staff providing their care. People’s personal spaces reflected their personalities and contained belongings that were important to them. People were supported to maintain choice and control over their daily lives, including how they spent their time.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care that met their assessed needs. Staff anticipated and responded proactively to new or changing needs. For example, when a person was prescribed a medicine staff were unfamiliar with, appropriate training was completed before their admission to ensure staff could support them safely.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed, and staff communicated with people effectively. People told us information about the service was shared with them in a way they could understand. A relative shared, “Staff will stand close to [person] so they can hear, as they are deaf.” There were clear policies and procedures in place to ensure information about people met data protection legislation requirements.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People, and relatives were wholly confident to approach staff and leaders to raise concerns or share their views. We were told people felt listened to, and action was taken as a result of feedback. For example, one person told us they had made a comment to the registered manager that they had missed having fresh fruit around. They told us the next day a fruit bowl arrived at their room and they were delighted. There was a clear complaints policy in place, and people and relatives who had raised complaints felt this was a positive process with good outcomes.

There were regular opportunities to feed back. This included a resident of the day system, which prompted staff to request feedback from people and relatives on their care each month. Relatives confirmed any concerns were promptly addressed. Feedback was also actively sought by regular satisfaction surveys. Data was analysed and used to make meaningful changes to the service.

There were regular meetings held for both people and relatives, which we were told were helpful to keep them involved in their family member’s care, the running of the service and to be able to raise any questions or concerns. Feedback included, “The meetings are very transparent and clear – if they decide to do something they will let you know, it is very open.” And, “I can raise anything at the relatives’ meetings and ask any questions. There is information, an agenda and minutes. They give you good warning of the meeting and ask for any questions. It is an opportunity to raise other points.” Detailed minutes, and actions were generated from these meetings, and we saw how the registered manager ensured these were followed up in a timely manner and communicated back to people and relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The premises and equipment were accessible. We saw people with a range of accessibility aids, and specialist equipment as required to help with their sensory and mobility needs. People and relatives told us their care was regularly reviewed, and appropriate equipment and support had been adapted to meet their changing needs safely.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, the activities co-ordinator was skilled at making practical adjustments to ensure activities were accessible for everyone. They explained how additional support was provided for people with visual impairments, and practical adaptations were made for people with limited mobility or dexterity. Staff had access to a specialised dementia range of games, tools and resources. They explained “We also have dementia friendly videos and themes on our MHA website.”

There were appropriate policies in place and staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care planning considered people’s holistic needs. For example, people had a ‘Hopes and preferences for end of life’ plan in place, which captured important details about how a person wished to be cared for at the end of their lives. A comprehensive end of life policy supported the service in ensuring a person-centred approach to end of life care.