Archived: Moorgate Croft

Moorgate Croft is registered to provide residential care to 31 older people, including those living with dementia. On the day of the inspection 30 people were receiving care services from the provider.

Moorgate Croft is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in grounds shared with two other homes managed by the same provider, and is within walking distance of the town centre.

The home’s registered manager had left their post a short time before the inspection to manage another of the provider’s homes located within the same grounds. They had not formally notified CQC of this at the time of the inspection, and had not applied to cancel their registration A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People gave us positive feedback about receiving care at the home. They told us they liked the staff and management, and found them to be kind. We observed that at all times staff treated people with dignity and respect, and worked hard to ensure that people were cared for in a kind manner.

People told us that food in the home was good. People were offered a wide range of choice, and mealtimes were a pleasant experience. There were plentiful activities both within the home and in the local community, which people appeared to enjoy taking part in.

The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to ensure it complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, making sure that people’s mental capacity was assessed, and acting accordingly.

We found that medicines were safely managed, and staff and the provider had a good knowledge of safeguarding and how to protect vulnerable people.

We saw that the provider managed risks safely, and where people were vulnerable to risk thorough assessments were in place.

Audits took place to monitor the quality of the service provided, and actions were devised from audits in order to ensure continuous improvement.

The home’s registered manager had left their post just before the inspection, however, they were still involved in the home to ensure a handover took place for the new manager. The new manager had been appointed and was in the process of making an application to CQC to become the registered manager.

Moorgate Croft is a 31 bed care home, providing care to older adults with support and care needs associated with old age and dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living at the home.

Moorgate Croft is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in grounds shared with two other homes managed by the same provider, and is within walking distance of the town centre.

At the time of the inspection, the service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service told us they were very happy with the care and support they received. The staff we spoke with understood people’s needs and preferences well. We saw they supported people in a caring, patient and empowering manner while encouraged them to express their opinions and choices. Staff promoted independence and choice as they carried out their day to day duties.

We found medicines were handled safely by staff who had received suitable training and exhibited good knowledge. Staff understood the arrangements for protecting people against the risk of abuse, and CQC records showed that the provider had taken appropriate action when required.

We saw there was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We found staff had been recruited using a robust system that made sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. They had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment.

People received a balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the meals provided. We saw specialist dietary needs had been assessed and catered for.

People told us in-house social activities were available, as well as occasional trips into the community. There was an activities co-ordinator at the home, but all staff were involved in arranging activities in the home, which we saw was carried out in a collaborative and fun manner.

There were systems in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and the general facilities at the home. We also saw various audit systems had been used to check the quality of service provided. A new system was seen to be robust, but other quality checks had not always identified areas requiring improvement.

The provider did not have adequate arrangements in relation to ensuring that people’s consent was obtained or acted upon. The legal framework regarding consent was not adhered to. Where people lacked the capacity to give consent, the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with seven people using the service, three relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The manager told us that several members of staff were dignity champions which ensured people were treated with respect. Relatives we spoke with told us the staff were kind and respectful.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The manager told us that she had attended training to ensure she understood her responsibilities to keep people who used the service safe. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place if required. The manager confirmed that no one living at the home was subject to any restrictions and she understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

One person we spoke with told us that they liked to stay in their room, only coming down to communal areas for meals. They told us staff respected their wishes. The person told us they enjoyed reading and was writing a novel about a family and this kept them occupied throughout the day.

Is the service caring?

The manager had ensured that staff had a good understanding of people's needs as they had completed training on person centred care for people living with dementia. This helped them to understand people's needs.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Results from June 2013 surveys showed high satisfaction levels had been achieved. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

For example, staff ensured they provided activities that were appropriate to the needs of people who used the service. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the trips out and we saw that trips to clumber park and Cleethorpes were arranged for June and July.

Is the service responsive?

Relatives we spoke with told us that they felt involved in decisions made about their relatives care. They said they were able to give their views on the service and were encouraged to discuss any concerns that they may have had.

We saw that care plans were reviewed regularly and any changes were made to ensure people's needs were met.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us they would speak to the manager and they were confident she would listen to their concerns. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had been in post for a good period of time and has been registered with the Commission since October 2013. Relatives were confident in her ability to deal with problems and provide a good service.

The service has a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the care provided and praised the manager who they said was approachable and professional.

We saw that staff treated people with dignity and kindness. We observed that a friendly and positive approach was used, to ensure that the wishes and needs of people using the service were respected.

We found systems protected people who used the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication.

People received care and treatment from suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

We undertook this visit to review the provider's compliance with the compliance action. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found that improvements had been made which ensured the service had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.