Moormead Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.This is the first inspection for this key question. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. We found people’s documentation was not always person-centred and the provider did not routinely seek feedback from people and families to ensure continuous improvement of the service. However, the service worked well with other health professionals to ensure people’s health care needs were met.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There were no records to show people’s care plans had been reviewed with them or with family members. The provider said they sometimes carried out telephone reviews, but these were not documented. Some people’s care plans did not provide person-centred information about how the person likes to be supported. We saw examples where the same statements were included in multiple people’s plans, which did not demonstrate a person-centred approach. Plans in relation to people’s emotional needs lacked detail. For example, in some plans, where the desired outcome was documented as “To maintain [person’s] mental condition and for [person] to always be happy and cheerful”, there was no information for staff on whether this was achievable or not, or how.

Some people’s activity plans had statements such as “offer meaningful activities that [person] enjoys" but did not provide any detail of the activities people enjoyed taking part in.

However, some relatives we spoke with confirmed they were involved with developing and reviewing their relative’s care plans.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.People living in the service were supported by a range of health professionals, including Speech and Language therapists, Tissue Viability Nurse, Dietitians and GPs. One staff member said they have referral forms for some health professionals and explained how staff supported service users to attend hospital appointments.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available in the service in picture-format, including activities that were going to happen to help people understand the activity options for the day. However, we noticed this information had not changed during both of our onsite visits to the service, despite the onsite visits taking place on different days of the week.

A staff member we spoke with explained how they help people understand about health appointments they are going to attend. The staff member said they tell the person about the appointment on the day of the appointment and explain what is going to happen and who is going to be there. The staff member said they repeat what they have said if needed.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There was a risk service improvement are not routinely identified and acted upon. The provider said they had not regularly sought feedback from people and relatives and residents’ meetings had not taken place in the service to gain feedback from people. However, the provider did share evidence of a resident’s survey which was completed during the inspection process. No issues were identified in the survey. Some relatives said they had completed surveys about the service previously. People we spoke with said they would speak with the provider about their concerns. A staff member told us they had responded to people’s requests around food and drink preferences in the evening and has made sure all staff are aware of these preferences by placing a note in the kitchen and the office for everyone to see.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment outside of the service when they needed it. Staff we spoke with said people are supported to attend hospital appointments. A staff member also said staff accompany people to appointments where they need additional support, for example, to reassure and help people who have dementia to understand what the appointment is about.

Staff and leaders did not always act on information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care in the service was not always tailored in response to this.Staff told us specialist equipment had not been purchased for a person following an occupational therapist assessment completed in August 2024. For example, shower commodes to enable some people to use the shower safely. This meant a poor experience for some people who may wish to access the shower but are provided with a bed bath instead. When we asked the provider for the rationale for the delay in ordering such equipment, we were told a breakdown in communication between themselves, and the nursing staff had meant this equipment had not been purchased in a timely way. However, staff confirmed some equipment, such as suction tubing and some activities, had been purchased by the provider when requested by staff. Since the inspection the provider confirmed they had provided a wheelchair for a person.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.At the time of our assessment, no one was receiving end of life care. However, although there were advanced care plans in place for some people at the service, not all the ones we looked at had been fully completed. There was a risk end of life care was not person-centred and tailored to the wishes of the individual.