Moriah House Limited

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 75 (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’s needs were assessed regularly. This meant people’s needs were continually assessed to ensure peoples’ individual needs were met. People and relatives were confident that their needs were understood by the staff team. One relative told us, “They [staff] adapt to his changing needs, he has his pad [continence pad] checked every two hours now so he keeps clean.” People’s communication needs were recorded and understood by staff. This allowed staff to communicate with people effectively. Staff had access to accurate care plans on how to support people. Where people’s needs changed, these care planning documents were updated so staff understood people’s changes in needs.

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 service used nationally recognised tools to assess risk. For example, the management team used The Braden Scale to evaluate a person’s risk of developing pressure ulcers (bedsores). This meant risks could be identified and prevention measures put in. External healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care and completed health assessments, and these assessments were used to formulate people’s care plans. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were effectively assessed, planned and supported. We observed people had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. One person told us, “The food’s good enough and if I eat in my room, it’s still fairly hot when it comes.” A professional we spoke with told us, “I have been coming to this home for years and they follow guidance I provide. People who were at risk of poor intake of fluid, we suggested to try 100ml at a time and they followed this advice and now they are no longer at risk of dehydration.” This meant people received effective support in line with their needs.

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. Management told us they worked well with other health professionals and obtained any health advice when needed and ensured it was followed. The registered manager told us, “[An NHS team] visit every Tuesday and discuss any health concerns we have regarding people’s weights, fluid intakes and they provide us with advice that we follow. We have a great working relationship with them, the GP and pharmacy.” We found where specialist input was required their guidance had been included within people’s care plans. Staff told us they worked well together. One staff member told us, “Teamwork is one of our strengths. We communicate well, share knowledge, and support each other during busy shifts.”

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. People’s needs were assessed to identify any concerns regarding their health and wellbeing. Staff knew people well and could explain how they supported people to live a healthy life and provided meaningful activities to complete to help people’s well-being. One staff member told us, “A resident with mobility issues improved significantly after we supported them with daily exercises.” On the day of our visit there was an external company who visited, who supported people to do exercising. There were monthly activity planners in place and people were encouraged to interact with each other. This prevented people from feeling lonely which promoted their overall health and well-being.

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. There was a process in place called ‘resident review’, this was when people’s care, and support needs were reviewed. The person was given an opportunity to discuss what was working and what needed to be improved. Care plans were updated if changes had occurred in a timely manner. This meant staff had accurate information to support people effectively. The registered manager also reviewed people’s care and monitored changes to ensure people had positive outcomes. For example, staff who completed any care plan review were then reviewed by the registered manager to ensure any actions identified were actioned.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed throughout our onsite visit staff obtaining consent before supporting people. The registered manager followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We found mental capacity assessments had been completed for people who were deemed to lack capacity. Staff had a good understanding regarding consent to care. One staff member told us, “Consent means agreeing to care or treatment after understanding what it involves. I explain what I’m about to do and seek verbal or non-verbal consent. If the person lacks capacity, we follow best interest decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act.”