Maids Moreton Hall

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.

This is the first assessment for this dual registered service. This key question has been rated 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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans and assessments did not always contain up to date information. For example, 1 person’s care plan did not reflect their current needs relating to their mobility, and end of life care. One person’s care plan did not contain specific information about a person’s presenting symptoms of a neurological condition. Another person’s care plan did not reflect consistent information regarding their required modified diet. The provider used a monthly “resident of the day” initiative to review care plans, however, these reviews did not always take place as planned.

We gave feedback to the provider and they took action to address these concerns.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives regarding their involvement in their loved one’s care plans. One relative told us, “My [relatives] care plan is littered with errors”, another told us, “I do the care reviews, I did one a few weeks ago.”

Staff gave us mixed feedback about how well they knew people. Some staff were unaware of people’s medical conditions or risks posed to them; however, staff were also able to share examples of people’s mobility and how they were required to support them. People and their relatives also gave us mixed feedback. Comments included, “They let me know if anything is wrong” and, “[Person] was resident of the day recently, which [they] enjoyed.”

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.

People were supported holistically, for example, people with medical conditions such as diabetes, had regular access to eye and feet checks. People’s care documentation contained guidance for staff as to how to be aware of the signs of high and low blood sugars, and how to act in this instance. A person’s relative told us, “The diabetes is managed very well as is the pressure care.”

People were supported to protect their skin integrity by staff who carried out assessments using nationally recognised tools. The service worked with health professionals when required to improve skin integrity and foot care. A professional told us, “If I recommend that a person needs some extra attention such as creaming or soaking, this is done in a timely manner with improvements to skin noted by my next visit.”

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.

Staff confirmed they attended in-person handovers at the start of every shift, with printed copies available for all staff to read to ensure they were aware of people’s changing needs. A staff member told us, “People’s care plans contain special instructions which are updated frequently, to provide smaller snippets of the most important details.”

One professional told us, “I relay my notes to the senior carer on duty, who then puts this onto the systemand makes staff aware of any relevant issues raised.” Another professional told us, “There is good communication between the care-home team and me as their visiting [service]. Relevant information regarding people’s medical history, medication, capacity, consent and changes in their health is made available when required.” This meant people experienced effective transitions between care systems.

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.

People were supported to access services to improve their health and wellbeing, for example, chiropody, audiology, optometry, hairdressing and beautician. We observed a person happily showing a staff member their hair after they had visited the salon.

A professional told us staff had responded appropriately when a person experienced weight loss and difficulties eating. Following assessment and treatment, the person was able to return to their usual diet and began to gain weight. This meant people were enabled to maintain their wellbeing, and quality of life.

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.

People’s weight and clinical presentation were monitored where required. Where it was identified people needed support maintaining their weight, they were offered fortified foods and fluids. People were referred to local healthcare services for support with diabetes, skin integrity and neurological conditions, including behaviours that communicated an emotion or distress.

A professional told us, “[Staff] are often able to tell me about changes in a person’s eating, discomfort, behaviour or oral health, even where the person may not be able to communicate the problem themselves.”

People were given the opportunity to join activities to improve their quality of life, in groups or on a 1 to 1 basis. For example, people attended armchair exercise, quizzes, or were taken out on local trips, shopping or to the local museum. A person told us how they had won the quiz for 3 weeks running and proudly showed us their trophy. People’s relatives gave mixed feedback on the availability of 1 to 1 activities for people who could not go into communal areas for health reasons.

Staff used personalised sensory approaches to support people’s comfort and wellbeing. A staff member described providing a ‘Namaste’ session for a person who was non-verbal and nearing the end of their life, which included low lighting, hand massage and music based on their preferences. They told us, “It brought me to tears as I could see the enjoyment in [Person’s] face.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported by staff who had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the MCA and how to support people who were subject to DoLS authorisations. Capacity assessments were detailed and clearly recorded how and when assessments had been undertaken, including the steps staff had taken to maximise people’s ability to understand, participate in and make decisions about their care and support. Records of best interest decisions were available when required.