You are here

Archived: Moorgate Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 March 2012
Date of Publication: 1 May 2012
Inspection Report published 1 May 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

It was not clear if people understood the care and treatment available to them. People’s independence was not always promoted and people were not always given choices or had their views listened to.

User experience

People told us they were happy living at Moorgate Lodge and most staff were caring and looked after people well. They told us they were given choices and were respected

We were also told that the activity coordinators were very good and provided many activities, however one person told us they had not been out in the community for many months and that they had asked staff to take them, but it had still not been arranged. The manager has informed us since our visit that transport had been arranged, but the person declined.

Other evidence

We had received a number of concerns about this service and as a result it was decided to carry out this responsive review. The concerns were regarding people’s needs not being met. We therefore decided during our visit to spend a period of time sitting with a group of people while lunch was served. We observed people on Chester unit and were able to observe people’s experiences of living in the home and their interactions with each other and the staff. We call this the ‘Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI).

The meal we observed was a rushed experience, people were not always given a choice, assistance was not always offered or given when required. One person was struggling to eat their food with their cutlery and started to pick it up with heir hands, no member of staff offered assistance. The staff were in a hurry to get the meal served and finished. Many people stayed in their rooms for the meal and staff were busy plating up meals for those people and did not give time to people in the dining room. The staff told us that the bain marie was not large enough to hold all the food so in order that food did not go cold they served as quickly as possible.

Interactions we observed between people and staff were not always inclusive or appropriate. Staff did not always explain to people what they were doing, what was happening or what was being organised.

One person sat at the table in a wheelchair, which was their choice, however due to the position of the foot plates, was unable to get close to the table. The person had to lean forward to reach the table and found it difficult to eat their meal. The staff did not try to facilitate a different table or seating position to make it easier and a pleasant experience for the person to eat their meal.

We discussed this with the manager and provider who was at the service and we were assured that the meal times would be reviewed to make it a pleasant experience for people.

Staff members who spoke with us were knowledgeable about the needs of each person they looked after. They had a good understanding of the care given on a daily basis. However some staff seemed rushed when giving care.

On Lincoln unit we observed one person being hoisted and staff carried this out safely and there were positive interactions to reassure the person. Staff on Lincoln unit were also observed giving people time to express their views.

We looked at care plans for three people who used the service; these were not clear to follow and did not detail people’s capacity to understand the care and treatment given. (See outcome 21).

In the care plans we looked at there was no documented evidence that the person had contributed to the development of their care needs or had recorded their preference not to contribute.

Meetings were held with people, their relatives and friends, people told us they attended the meeting and they were very good.