You are here

Archived: Moorgate Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 July 2014
Date of Publication: 24 July 2014
Inspection Report published 24 July 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 8 July 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations, speaking with staff who were supporting people who used the service and looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

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

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the service was safely run. Audits were carried out by the registered manager.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed and care plans were designed to meet the needs of people who used the service. Relatives of people who used the service told us that they felt involved in their relatives care, and were able to contribute to their care plan.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and saw that they were patient and gave time for people to respond. Care plans included people�s interests, likes and dislikes. This ensured that people�s preferences were considered as part of their care.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service who told us that they felt their relative was cared for appropriately. One relative said, �I have no concerns about the care provided to my relative.�

Is the service responsive?

The service had activity co-ordinators who planned social events and daily activities for people who used the service. We observed people taking part in activities that were suitable. People also joined in from a distance which suited their needs.

People received appropriate support to ensure there nutritional needs were met. Care plans told us that staff responded appropriately to issues such as weight loss and difficulties in swallowing. Dieticians and speech and language therapists were consulted where needed.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service who were able to discuss anything with the manager or the staff. One relative said, �The managers door is always open and he always makes time for me.�

Is the service well-led?

We spoke with staff that were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt able to speak with the nurses or the manager if they needed to. Staff saw the importance of involving people and their relatives to improve the service.

There was a quality assurance system in place which was completed throughout the year. The manager acted on suggestions made and discussed the outcome of the survey with people who used the service and their relatives.