You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 April 2014
Date of Publication: 3 May 2014
Inspection Report published 03 May 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 14 April 2014

During a routine inspection

Moorfield House is a residential care home providing personal care without nursing. At the time of our visit there were 25 people who were resident at the home. Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by two inspectors, who addressed our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We spoke to six people who used the service who told us they felt safe and were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Following recent concerns, we found safeguarding procedures were in place and staff were able to demonstrate how they would safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) although no applications have been submitted. We spoke to staff about their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and DoLs which was vague and inconsistent. We confirmed that senior managers had all received training. The clinical manager told us they were about to deliver training to all staff.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Managers set staff rotas, they took people�s care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. Staff told us they had no concerns about staffing levels. This helped to ensure people�s needs were always met.

Recruitment practices were safe and thorough. A range of policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with people who used the services or their relatives and health care professional. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Overall, people and their relatives said that their care needs were being met.

Visitors confirmed they were able to visit their loved ones at any time and speak in private. They felt welcomed by friendly and cheerful staff.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, friendly and attentive staff. Staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, � I feel safe definitely." "I think its very good, staff are very nice." "No concerns about how things are done here." "I'm quite happy here."

Relatives completed quality assurance questionnaires. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People�s preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities inside the service regularly. The home had a dedicated activities coordinator who organised daily activities and events and was assisted by a volunteer who attended on several occasions each week.

People we spoke to were aware of the complaints procedure but had never had cause to complain. There were no formal complaints recorded at the time of our visit. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. This was confirmed by a visiting health care professional.

The service had some quality assurance systems in place. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt supported by the manager. One member of staff told us; "I feel supported, any problems I know where to go for help and assistance." This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.