You are here

Archived: Moorgate Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 21 September 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 21 September 2017 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection took place in July 2015, when the provider was meeting the regulations and was rated good. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Moorgate Lodge’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Moorgate Lodge is a care home which provides care for up to 56 older people. The home also provides nursing care. The service in located on the outskirts of Rotherham. The home is divided into three units on three different floors. There is plenty of parking and people have access to secure gardens. At the time of our inspection there were 54 people using the service.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

We spoke with people who used the service and they told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff we spoke with knew what action to take if the suspected abuse and knew how to protect people. Staff felt the registered manager would act on any concerns they brought to their attention.

We spoke with people and their relatives and observed staff interacting with people throughout the inspection. We found there were enough staff available to respond to people when they required support.

The provider had a system in place to ensure people received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

Staff had been recruited to work at the home using a safe recruitment system. This ensured that pre-employment checks were carried out prior to staff commencing employment. Staff who had not worked in care prior to their appointment at the service completed the ‘Care Certificate.’ This was based on fundamental skills and knowledge required for working in a care setting. All staff employed completed an induction to the service which included general information about the home and any training required prior to them commencing their role.

People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals provided at the home. We observed meals to be nutritious, appetising and people’s preferences were considered. Staff provided appropriate support to people who required assistance with eating and a relaxed atmosphere was evident.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Care records clearly evidenced the support people needed to make decisions about their care. People were involved in their care and staff sought consent prior to completing a task.

Staff were trained and supported to do their job well. Staff knew people well and supported and understood their needs well. People had access to health care professionals when required.

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and found they were kind and caring. Staff involved people in their care and maintained their privacy and dignity.

People received care which was in line with their current needs. Social stimulation was provided by two activity co-ordinators who arranged a variety of different events. People knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any problems would be rectified.

The service was led by a management team who were supportive to staff and people who used the service and their relatives. People were asked their views and opinions about the home and were involved in meetings to discuss them. The service conducted audits to ensure the home was providing a good service. Any issues identified were addressed

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 28 and 29 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 28 and 29 July 2015. We last inspected the service in July 2014 and found they were meeting the Regulations we looked at.

Moorgate Lodge is a care home providing care for 56 older people. The service is located on the outskirts of Rotherham. The service is divided into three units on three floors accessed by a lift. There is parking and people have access to secure gardens. There are several communal areas including lounges dining areas and a separate activity room. At the time of this inspection there were 53 people who used the service living at the home.

The service has a registered manager who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since February 2014. 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 told us they felt safe living in Moorgate Lodge. Everyone we spoke with told us they were confident that they could tell the staff whatever they needed to if they were worried about anything. There were procedures to follow if staff had any concerns about the safety of people they supported.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. The clinical lead nurse told us how they had involved health professionals when managing one person who they were trying to manage behaviours that challenged others. The nurse also gave examples where multidisciplinary agencies were involved with one person’s care and treatment.

There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a diet that met their nutritional needs. However, several people we spoke with told us they thought the standard of meals was not very good.

People were able to access activities. The activity coordinator had developed a weekly plan of activities. People could also access religious services which were held periodically at the home. One the first day of our inspection people were given a choice to attend a religious service held at one of the sister homes which is on the same site as Moorgate Lodge.

We found the home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt that the staff knew them and their likes and dislikes. A person said, “They understand perfectly what my requirements are.”

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and felt that they were listened to. People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it. We found records that confirmed complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.

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.

Inspection carried out on 24 July 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At this inspection we found medication was administered safely to people. People were given appropriate support where required, to ensure they had taken their medication.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because their records had been reviewed and updated regularly.

Inspection carried out on 23 April 2013

During a routine inspection

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People were confident that their relatives would ensure they received appropriate care. One resident said “I know my son would make sure I got what I needed. And I have!”

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. However staff said they found the care records difficult to follow.

We found that people received adequate food and hydration to meet their needs. However some people told us that the quality of food was sometimes not as good as it should be, and the food could be hotter. People told us there was always plenty of choice of meals.

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

People we spoke with and their relatives told us they felt there were not enough staff to meet people’s needs. One relative said that she sometimes struggled to find staff to talk to when she visited her relative because the staff were always busy.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

Some records did not reflect the care and treatment provided to people who used the service.

Inspection carried out on 7 November 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Moorgate Lodge in August 2012. At that inspection we found the provider was not compliant in two essential standards of quality and safety. We made compliance actions, which required the provider to make improvements in these areas.

We undertook this visit to review the provider’s compliance with the compliance actions. 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 they had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

Inspection carried out on 9 August 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. One person said “Staff asks us daily what we want, if you don’t want what is on the offer you can choose something else, like jacket potatoes.”

People we spoke with told us that the care provided at the home met their needs and they felt able to tell staff if they needed extra help. People told us they felt safe at the home and would tell the manager if they had concerns about anything. People told us that they were able to join in activities of their choice. One person said “I like the bingo and taking part in the quiz.”

We spoke with four relatives and they told us that the care provided was good and they said the food had improved “enormously” since the home had employed a new cook.

Inspection carried out on 19 March 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

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. Since our visit the manager has informed us the person had been offered transport to go out, but declined to go.

People we spoke with on York unit told us that it was difficult to locate staff when they were sat in the lounge. They often did not see staff for over an hour and there was no call system accessible to alert staff that assistance was required. Relatives also told us that when they visited they could be in the lounge for an hour or more and not see a member of staff.