Moormead Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last inspection, the rating of this key question was good. At this inspection the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. We identified shortfalls around support relating to dignity and independence and in workforce wellbeing. However, we received positive feedback about the care and support from people and relatives about their experience.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. For example, we saw a staff member was crouched next to one person in the communal lounge and called across the lounge to another person asking about their personal care. This was done in a raised voice and was not discreet, so it did not allow the person’s dignity to be maintained. We raised our concerns for the provider to address during the inspection. We also observed another member of staff put a drink to a person’s mouth without asking if they would like a drink or not. They did not interact with the person at all and then began trying to make a phone call using a portable phone whilst also supporting the person with their drink. When another staff member entered the room, they asked them to do something for them. When the phone call was answered, they stood up, put the drink down and walked away from the person, again without speaking to them. We also observed a member of staff giving people biscuits by hand, rather than offering them the biscuit from a tin or packet. We saw the staff member put a biscuit up to one person’s mouth and say, “Open, open.” The person took a small bite, and the staff member put the remainder of the biscuit down on the table, rather than on a plate or napkin.

However, we did observe some positive interactions with people. We saw a different member of staff walking around the lounge and interacting with every person there. They spoke to each person individually, such as, “Good morning [name]. That’s a lovely top you’re wearing; I haven’t seen that one before. It really suits you.” People and relatives said they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. One person said, “I can’t complain, dignity and respect are good.” And one relative said, “Staff are kind and always respectful. They always make sure [relative] has her two dolls that she looks after.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.Information about what is important to people was not always included in people’s care plans we looked at, for example, information about people’s religious and spiritual needs and people’s preferences around showers or washes.However, staff we spoke with were aware of people’s needs and preferences. People and relatives told us they felt staff were aware of their individual requirements.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Personal hygiene care plans did not provide any information about what people could do themselves and which areas of personal hygiene they needed staff support for. Not all the care plans listed people’s choices for the time they liked to get up and go to bed. However, care plans did refer to staff encouraging people to do as much as they could do for themselves to maintain their independence.There was a risk staff missed opportunities to support people to maintain independence. We observed staff assisted a person with a drink, however we also saw the person was able to drink independently. The provider said staff were concerned the person would spill the drink on their clothing. However, the provider could not demonstrate they had considered the use of alternative equipment which could have been used to reduce the risk of spillages and maintain independence. However, one staff member we spoke with explained how they would help someone maintain their independence by encouraging a person to do as much as possible for themselves when helping them to have a wash.

We had mixed reviews from people and relatives about their experience of choice and control in the service. A relative explained their relative can make choices and had recently refused a haircut. Other relatives said staff knew their relatives well and were able to help their relative make choices at times where their relatives could not. However, a person said they had not been offered an alternative different food or drink choice and so they went without.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. A person we spoke with said staff did not listen to them, and the person also said, “if I use the call bell staff say they will be back in 5 minutes, but by then I might have had an accident as I can’t hold it in.” We observed a call bell was reset for a person while staff were busy on the phone.However, relatives said staff do respond quickly to call bells and records showed the provider was auditing call response time and had not identified any issues with staff response time.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We found staff morale was low. Staff said the service ‘lacked leadership’ and some staff said they had not received supervision. Staff said they supported each other as a team, but did not feel supported in their roles by the provider. A staff member said, ‘I am not having much to eat and drink or taking regular breaks during a 12-hour shift…the division of labour is difficult with no one [management] to help us at the top.’

Some staff said they were at risk of ‘burnout’, a state of physical, mental and emotional exhaustion, because they were required to cover each other’s annual leave and although happy to do this most times, staff said they would like alternative cover arrangements to be available for example a bank nurse to prevent burnout in themselves.

The provider said they had made changes to the rota to enable staff to have more days off and said this had been received well by the team. A staff member said they appreciated this new way of working. Another staff member said the provider had made reasonable adjustments for a staff member following a period of illness.