Moormead Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The last assessment identified the provider had not always transferred assessment records on to people’s care plans. In this assessment we saw improvements had been made in this area. People’s needs had been assessed, and information had been included in their care plan. Records showed people’s needs were reassessed at least monthly, or more often if their support needs changed. We saw records which showed family members had been included in care reviews and relatives confirmed this.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Nationally recognised tools were used to assess and monitor people’s needs and risks. Support and advice were sought from external health professionals when required and we saw records which detailed the outcome of those reviews. However, not all of this information had been included in people’s care plans. This meant there was a risk that staff might not be kept up to date with any changes in people’s care and support needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Communication between health and social care teams was effective. When people required an emergency hospital admission, we found copies of assessments and medication records were shared with the hospital team. We saw records which showed people’s clinical presentation was assessed in full before external advice was sought.

Staff told us they now used a communication book to share information. Relatives told us staff worked well together as a team.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

In the last assessment guidance related to food and fluids was not always clear in peoples care plans. In this assessment improvements had been made to include more guidance around people’s foods and fluids in their care plans.

In this assessment we found people were supported to be as healthy as possible. Records showed that people had enough to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored, and when people had lost weight, action was taken.

There were snacks and drinks available for people, and we saw staff regularly offering and supporting people with drinks.

Staff said people joined in with armchair exercises to maintain their mobility. One person had told staff they would like to keep fit and said they wanted to lead in chair based keep fit exercises with other people at the home. Records confirmed this happened.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We identified shortfalls in the risk management plans for some people as detailed in the safe section of the report. However, most people’s care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure that they continued to meet people’s needs and preferences, and staff took action to address any emerging issues. For example, when people’s appetites reduced and weight loss was noted, referrals were made to dietetic services. Staff followed the guidance of dieticians to ensure people stayed healthy. This included fortifying meals and monitoring people’s weight over time. We also saw examples when people found it difficult to find a comfortable position to lie in, that specialist positioning team advice was sought.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

In the last assessment the service had failed to ensure they were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. Where they lack mental capacity, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

This assessment identified the provider was still not working within the principles of the MCA framework. This assessment found assessments had been carried out, but they were of an inconsistent quality. Best interest decision meetings had been held, but the records did not always detail how the decision had been reached and what if any, less restrictive options had been considered. We saw that mental capacity assessments had been carried out, but when people had been assessed as having capacity to make decisions, in some instances we saw that best interest decisions had been made when they were not a legal requirement. This was not in line with the provider’s policy. Some people had sensor alarms in place to alert staff if they tried to walk unaided. This was intended to prevent people from falling. However, people had not always been assessed for their mental capacity to choose to have a sensor in use. We fed this

back to the provider. The manager said they will review MCA’s and people’s best interest decisions with people.

We saw examples of staff asking people’s consent before supporting them. For example, we saw a member of staff supporting 1 person to walk into the lounge. The staff member asked, “Where would you like to sit?” and when the person replied that they didn’t mind, the staff member indicated an area where there were seats available.