Moorhaven Care Home Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager demonstrated a positive, compassionate and listening culture. Staff spoke positively about the support they received and the culture of the service. Comments included,“[Registered manager] is nice, approachable and supportive” and “I am happy in my role. There is nothing to worry about here. [Registered manager] is approachable and resolves any issues.”

There was a policy on equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff all received training in this topic. People, their relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the service to help shape its future. A relative told us, “I give feedback to the home regularly.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There was an organisational structure in place and staff understood their roles, responsibilities and contributions to the service. The management team were responsive when things went wrong and took action to make improvements. Throughout the inspection, management and staff we spoke with acted with openness, integrity and transparency.

Staff praised the registered manager and wider management team. Staff spoke positively about the support they received. People and their relatives told us, “I would recommend the home. [Registered manager] is fantastic” and “I chat to the [registered manager], they keep me updated. We visited a few other homes before choosing this one. It has been great here, I would recommend the home.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service demonstrated a positive, compassionate and listening culture. Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. The service had a whistleblowing policy in place. Staff we spoke with told us they felt able to speak up about any issues and their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

People and their relatives told us when they could raise concerns about their care and support when they needed to. They felt able to approach and speak with management and staff.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider’s recruitment process and internal processes meant staff were recruited fairly and workforce equity was promoted. The provider employed a wide range of staff with diverse backgrounds.

The registered manager understood the importance of having a fair and inclusive workplace. Staff received relevant training and supervision to support their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusivity and fairness in the workplace.

Staff told us they felt they were valued and treated with respect.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s auditing systems were not always robust. The provider had a range of checks and audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service and to help drive improvements.However, auditing systems and did not identify the issues we found during this inspection around medicines and maintenance checks. The provider assured us audits and processes would be improved upon.

Governance systems were in place to monitor the standard of care people received. Staff obtained regular feedback people. Regular meetings took place with different staff teams, which also looked at the quality of care and performance.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

In our review of people’s care records, conversations with the registered manager and staff, we found the provider worked with relevant health professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Processes were in place to ensure learning happened when things went wrong and examples of good practice to support further learning were shared.

Systems and processes supported ongoing learning and development, including regular training sessions and team meetings. Feedback from people, relatives, and staff was actively sought through surveys, with responses used to inform service development.