Moorhead Rest Home

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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Not everyone had been involved or seen their care plan for some time. The environment had not been personalised to suit people’s individual needs. For example, bedroom doors were not personalised. As a high number of people living at this service had a diagnosis of dementia, it may prove difficult for people to identify their bedroom.

While some staff felt people were able to make their own choices, other staff raised concerns in this area. One staff member said, “There isn’t really any person-centred care because there isn’t enough staff. So, people have to go to bed when there is more staff here, they don’t have a choice.” However, other staff told us people did have a choice of when they liked to go to bed.

We observed staff to be attentive to people’s needs and choices were offered at mealtimes.

There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. We saw limited evidence of referrals to other healthcare professionals being made. Despite multiple requests for professional contact details to obtain feedback, these were not provided.

People and relatives spoke about the high turnover of staff. One person said, “There was quite a lot of staff coming and going.” We did however see evidence that staff who were present during the site visit had worked at this service for many years. Staff told us, “Newer staff have left but a lot of staff here have been here for a long time.” Contingency plans were in place in case of an emergency.

People’s personal information was not always protected. The office door was unlocked during the 1st and 2nd day of the site visit, and nobody could locate the key. This meant people’s confidential information was not secured. The manager told us GDPR training was mandatory, however, we saw no evidence of this on the training matrix.

The manager told us the service complies with the Accessible Information Standards and that materials would be available in large print, easy read and alternative languages should this be required. Relatives told us they would be informed of any changes to a person’s need or of any important information.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their treatment and support. We saw no evidence of resident or relative meetings taking place and relatives confirmed these did not occur. We only saw evidence of 2 people’s feedback obtained this year; however, both sets of feedback were positive.

People and relatives told us they knew what to do should they have any concerns. One relative said, “I would speak to the manager, we haven’t had to complain since [person] came in this home. We are relaxed in the knowledge that they’re OK. Family members visit three or four times a week and we know they will be looked after whether we are there or not.” We saw no evidence of complaints and staff told us what they would do should someone have a concern.

The service did not always make sure the environment was accessible for all. A high number of people living at this service had a diagnosis of dementia. Carpets were patterned and different flooring types were used which could be confusing for some people. There was limited signage around the service and bedroom doors were not personalised to ensure people could easily identify them. Doors were not secured and staff told us the lift frequently breaks down. One staff member said, “The lift breaks down all the time. Two people have to stay in their room because of this. The bathroom on the ground floor is too small and we can’t even use it.”

Contingency plans were in place as well as an on-call system where a manager would be available to guide staff should the need occur. Relatives told us the service was accessible.

Not all care records held details of people’s cultural and religious needs and 2 people told us they would like to see more religious activity taking place. One person said, “I used to go to church, and it would be nice if a vicar popped in for a chat now and then.” Staff felt people were treated well but felt staffing levels prevented more time being spent with people. One staff member said, “People are treated well but they deserve more time that we can’t give to them because there is not enough staff.”

Despite multiple requests for professional contact details to obtain feedback, these were not provided.

People were not 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. One person’s care plan stated they had advanced wishes in place. However, when we asked to review this care plan, it was not provided. We also asked for examples of other end of life wishes or advanced care plans and again this was not provided. We saw no evidence people’s end of life wishes had been considered and only 2 staff members had completed training in this area.