- Care home
Moormead Care Home
Assessment report published 30 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 26 February to 18 March 2026.
Moormead Care home is registered to provide care and support for up to 21 people. The service provides residential and nursing care for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. This assessment was carried out to check whether conditions issued at our last assessment in July 2025 had been met. The service has been without a registered manager since July 2024. The nominated individual (NI) carried out day to day management responsibilities. They were supported by a registered manager from another service managed by the provider.
A new manager had been appointed prior to this assessment. They were in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the service’s registered manager.
We found the provider had made some improvements to care planning information, management of incidents and management of medicines. Although guidance on supporting people to manage risks related to ulcers and choking was clearer, some care planning documents still contained inconsistencies, and some risk assessments did not always include detail. However, we found no evidence that anyone using the service had come to harm as a result.
Medicines were now stored safely, and risks had been assessed in relation toblood thinning medications.
Accidents and incidents were now followed up appropriately and action taken to reduce risk. Staff were now reporting incidents when they happened.
Staff felt more confident about the leadership in the service. Staff supervisions and staff meetings were happening frequently, and staff were given opportunities to feed back to leaders. Morale had improved amongst the staff, staff confirmed they worked well as a team. Nurses had not had clinical supervisions to support their role and professional practices. However, nursing staff confirmed relevant health professionals were contacted for advice around people’s health needs. Leaders were now regularly seeking feedback from people and staff to identify areas to improve.
Health professionals spoke positively about the leadership and culture of the service. One professional who visited the service regularly told us; staff were kind and managed a range of needs well- including dementia and nursing care. They reported having, “not an ounce of worry” about the service. Another regular health care provider reported no concerns about the care or
about the way people were treated. They confirmed they had not needed to raise any safeguarding issues and that staff were responsive and knowledgeable about people’s needs.
The provider had previously been in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. During this assessment, we found that improvements had been made. Although some areas still require further improvement, the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. This service has been in Special Measures since 10 July 2025. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. The service is no longer in Special Measures.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 9 relatives and 4 people living in the home.
People living in the home generally said they were happy, felt safe and had good relationships with the staff. Activities were viewed positively, although one person wished for more trips out.
We heard comments from people such as, “I am happy here”, “I feel safe”, and, “I get on well with the staff, the activities are quite good.”
Views about the food were mixed: some people said meals were good or improving, however, some relatives raised concerns about quality of food. Others told us their family members enjoyed the food, had choice, always had drinks available and, in some cases, had gained weight. People told us, “The food is very good” and “Food wasn’t good at first but is getting better.”
People and relatives said call bells were responded to quickly, and many felt risks such as falls or pressure care were well managed, with support from external health professionals. However, 1 relative said they had not been involved in reviewing care plans or risk assessments.
The home’s cleanliness was consistently praised, with people describing it as clean, hygienic and well maintained. One person said the building was tired and required updating.
Feedback about communication with the home varied. While some relatives felt involved, 2 out of 9 relatives reported difficulties contacting the home by phone and felt staffing levels sometimes affected responsiveness.
There were also positive examples of multidisciplinary working, including regular visits from GPs, nurses and specialist teams.