Archived: Moot Lodge

Updated 2 July 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 15th of April 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by the lead adult social care inspector.

We did not receive a Provider Information Form (PIR) as one had not been sent to the provider for completion. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We looked at the information we held on safeguarding referrals, concerns raised with us and applications the manager had made under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We planned the inspection using this information.

We spoke to six people who lived in the home, five visitors, two members of the staff team, the supervisor on duty and we spent time with the registered manager.

We also spent time looking at records, which included looking at five people’s care plans and risk assessments to help us see how their care was being planned and delivered. We looked at the staff rotas for the previous four weeks, staff training and supervision records and records of medicines administration.

Updated 2 July 2015

This unannounced inspection took place on the 15th April 2015. During our previous inspection on 21 August 2014 we found the provider met all the standards we inspected.

Moot Lodge is a care home registered to provide accommodation for 19 people requiring personal care. The home is located in the market town of Brampton and overlooks the market square. The home is close to local shops and public transport routes.

The home has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that the service was safe. There were systems in place to manage risks, safeguarding matters and medication and this ensured people’s safety. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep the people they supported safe at all times.

We saw that the ordering, administration and disposal of medicines was well managed.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005. Some staff had completed training in MCA and DoLS and were hoping to pass on their knowledge to the other members of the staff team.

The manager and supervisor were aware of the processes to follow when supporting people who had limited or no capacity to make important decisions without assistance.

We saw that healthcare needs were met through the local GP surgery and the district nursing team. Other external health care professional’s advice was sought when this was required.

People were protected from the risks associated with nutrition and hydration. People spoke positively about the choice of food available. Where people were at risk of malnutrition, referrals had been made to the dietician or the speech and language therapist for specialist advice.

Staff were recruited safely and there was sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived in Moot Lodge.

Staff training was up to date and staff were given the opportunity to discuss their training needs during meetings with their line manager.

We saw the staff approached people they supported in a kind and caring manner. People told us the staff, “Were wonderful and very caring”. People were given time to do things at their own pace.

Each person who lived in the home had an individual, personalised plan of care. We found that the care planning and review processes were centred on the individual and detailed how they wanted their care to be provided.

There was a complaints procedure in place with detail about how to make a complaint on display.

The registered provider had a policy and process in place to evaluate and monitor the quality of the service provided.