Archived: The Moorings Retirement Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

We assessed 5 quality statements within this key question. We identified 1 breach of Regulation in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.

Management and leaders failed to identify people were being exposed to the risks of poor and inappropriate care and had failed to take action to improve standards of care. This did not demonstrate a caring service.

We were not assured that people’s personal care and intimate needs were always being met. Whilst we observed most people were clean and tidy, we also observed that some people appeared unkempt.

Peoples’ care plans did not always contain sufficient information about how to effectively manage their health needs. Information contained within people’s care plans was generic and lacked sufficient detail to enable staff to provide consistently good quality care.

This service scored 35 (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 did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Throughout this inspection we made observations of staff practices that were not always compassionate or considerate of the impact on people. We observed on numerous occasions staff using incorrect techniques when hoisting people. For example, not crossing the leg straps to ensure the person’s legs were kept together and not pulled apart. We were not assured that staff were appropriately trained in using this piece of equipment correctly as the technique staff were using had not considered the impact on people’s dignity and level of distress.

We observed a person who had become distressed, however, not all staff had the same approach to support the person through this period of distress. Not all staff approaches were compassionate and there was very little conversation or engagement from some staff when the person was in distress. This observation did not demonstrate that people were treated with compassion, dignity or respect.

A person’s personal hygiene care plan described, “Personal hygiene, Female only staff to support". However, on the same page it also described, "Has expressed preference for a male or female carer". The daily records indicated that male staff were tending to the person’s personal care needs. Due to the level of inconsistencies in some peoples care records we were not assured that people's preferences in relation to their personal and intimate care needs were being respected.

Feedback from relatives was mixed and included a lack of "care shown in the care of residents clothing. This impacts on my [loved one] as they have always taken pride in their clothes and often, they have come back shrunk misshapen and often not even [loved ones]. This becomes an extra cost on a monthly basis to replace damaged or lost items”, “Most of the staff are empathetic, patient and caring. There are however some [staff] that haven't been so patient or empathetic and my [loved one] has been vocal about their behaviour” and “Staff are always cheerful and helpful.”
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans did not always contain sufficient guidance for staff to manage specific conditions and enable them to provide consistent support to people. For example, the care plan of a person living with dementia lacked sufficient detail to help staff understand how their dementia impacted them as a person and how best to support them through their dementia journey.

Records of activity provision demonstrated limited options for some people. This included people who spent time in bed or in their rooms. The activities board described that sea front walks were offered. However, this was not evident during our visits and activity records showed people had minimal time outside unless it was a walk around the garden or trips out with their relatives.

An in-depth review of records over a 58-day period for 5 people demonstrated they had less than 4 hours each of social activity. There were several days where no activities had been recorded as having taken place. We could not be assured that people received daily stimulation and were therefore concerned that this placed them at risk of social isolation.
 

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights or exercise choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Discussions with people highlighted that they were not routinely given choices about their lifestyle for example, personal choice on when they awoke in the morning. We had received concerns that people were being awoken at 5am in the mornings and during our 2 out of hours visits which commenced at 05.50am and 05.55am we found several people were already up and in the day lounges. This was discussed with management on 28 April 2025 and an assurance was given that this practice would immediately cease. However on 9 May 2025, the concerns remained the same.

We were not assured that baths, showers and oral hygiene were regularly offered or provided to people to maintain their basic hygiene needs and ensure they were supported in a dignified way. Some people appeared well kept however, others looked unkempt, including long, dirty nails and some males were unshaven. Clothes were not always clean.

An in-depth review of records showed that baths and showers were not an option for some people and that washes were the recorded choices on the system. We were concerned people were experiencing a lack of choice and control over their personal care needs. For example, a person’s personal care record included their care needs as being a bath in the morning and weekly hair washing. However, when we reviewed the hygiene records for a 58-day period between 1 March to 27 April 2025, this highlighted there had only been 1 bath and 1 shower given during the 58-day period. It further highlighted that only 1 hair wash took place during the same 58 day period.

Another person’s personal care plan described, 'Two staff will assist with washing and dressing'. However, the hygiene records showed this person had only been given 1 shower during the 58 days period

We received feedback from relatives in relation to their loved ones personal appearance, comments included, “Often my [loved ones] nails are dirty hair is just combed and not styled. Can make them look scruffy,” “Not always for [loved one] e.g. fitting of false teeth or styling of hair” and “There are occasions where [loved ones] nails may be unclean, or [loved ones] hair is greasy.”
 

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our assessment visits we observed call bells ringing continuously and sometimes for long periods of time without a staff member response. Management told us that call bell audits were not completed. This meant there was no management oversight of the response times in meeting people’s immediate needs.

We observed staff were not always responsive to people’s needs to ensure their safety and comfort. For example, there were not always enough staff available in the communal areas when there were people present and staff failed to respond to people’s escalating anxieties or periods of frustration or distress in a timely way. During both of our out of hours visits we had to request staff provide fluids to people who were seated in the lounge areas and with no means to call for assistance.

We observed people seated in wheelchairs that were not the correct size and clearly too small. For example, one person was ill seated in a wheelchair, slumped and twisted to one side with their pressure cushion sloped over the edge of their seat. The person’s feet were on floor and not on foot plates. When we checked the wheelchair, we noted it belonged to another person.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The providers systems and processes in place to support staff wellbeing and enablement were not effective. For example, although return to work interviews were in place, records highlighted that a staff member had not been supported to return home after they had been signed off work by health professionals.

Management were not able to tell us if the home had an employee assistance programme (a confidential employee benefit designed to support workers with both personal and work-related challenges). The management told us that staff recognition was in place and staff received a bottle of wine, chocolates or flowers if they had gone above and beyond expectations.