Moorhaven Care Home Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People received tailored support that was centred around their assessed needs, choices and decisions. People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service and ongoing assessments informed their care plans. People's care plans contained details about how staff should best support them, and regular reviews were undertaken.

Staff knew people's preferences, likes and dislikes. They provided support in line with legislation, standards and guidance to achieve effective outcomes. Information within care plans included people’s preferences with daily routines and details about their likes and dislikes.

People and their relatives told us they were involved and consulted around people’s care. Comments included, “I am involved in my care” and “I am involved in [relative’s’] care planning and reviews.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider and registered manager demonstrated a good understanding and application of current good practice to assess and act on people’s needs. They ensured care planning gave staff the right level of information to meet people’s needs. People received support from staff who had the right training and support.

The service delivered care and support in line with best practice guidance. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People were given choices each day of what they would like to eat for their meals. Staff monitored people’s wellbeing and encouraged healthy choices.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

All relevant staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering people's care and support, staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet people's needs.

Staff worked well with external healthcare professionals. They made timely referrals when they identified people had a specific need. Staff communicated with various professionals such as the local authority, GP and community healthcare teams.

The registered manager had systems in place to ensure information was shared with team members such as during shift handovers and team meetings. Information was also made available to healthcare partners when needed, for example paramedics when people required an ambulance, or on admission to hospital.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There was information for staff on how to monitor and care for people to keep them safe and well. Care plans included a section on people’s health and well-being and incorporated details of people's diagnosis and medical background. Care plans included details about how people’s health and medical conditions affected their everyday life and how staff could support them to overcome difficulties.

People were involved in regularly reviewing their health and well-being needs and were encouraged and supported to make healthy choices to help promote and maintain independence and well-being.

We observed the lunchtime meal. There was a pleasant atmosphere throughout the meal, with good interaction between carers and people who were dining.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet. People and their relatives were happy with the quality of the meals. One person told us, “The food is brilliant, it is nice. If I wanted something else that is not on the menu I can have something else, you are spoilt for choice here.” People’s weight was regularly monitored to help identify any unplanned weight loss. When people had lost weight, they had been referred to a dietician or their GP for advice and ongoing nutritional support.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and how to promote their health and wellbeing in their day-to-day care. People and their relatives spoke positively about how people’s health concerns were managed. One person told us, “I had an ulcer on my heel, but it is healed now with the nurses coming.”

The registered manager had regular oversight of people’s health through health-related audits and checks, for example monitoring people’s weight and baseline observations.

The provider had a robust approach to monitoring the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment, and action was taken to continuously improve it. One relative told us, “I would recommend the home. I have worked in care, and you know a good home when I see one.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care. However, consent had not always been considered when administering people’s medicines.

Overall, the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). However, as mentioned in the safe domain, one person was receiving covert medicines [the administration of medicines disguised in food or drink] however, there was no mental capacity assessment or best interest decision recorded, and a deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in relation had not been applied for.

Measures were in place to ensure people received the support in the least restrictive way possible. Care records contained the relevant level of information in relation to people's capacity and consent to care was obtained. Concerns about people’s mental capacity were escalated to the local authority and health care professionals.