The Moorings 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.

This is the first assessment for this service since registration under the new provider. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff were approachable and friendly, and we observed some kind and caring interactions. However, many interactions were task-focused and did not always reflect a person-centred approach. Staff often appeared rushed, and there was not always a consistent staff presence in communal areas.

People did not always receive timely support, which affected their dignity. For example, 1 person remained in wet clothing after spilling a drink. Although staff were informed, they delayed providing support, and the person waited around 10 minutes before receiving assistance.

We observed another person asleep at a dining table, their clothing had moved and left them exposed. Staff responded promptly when we raised this but had not identified it themselves.

During a 30-minute observation in the dining area, staff provided minimal interaction. Some people did not have access to food or drink, and one person showed clear signs of distress by calling out for help. Staff did not respond promptly, and there were periods where no staff were present. We raised this with management, after which staff engagement improved.

We also observed staff completing care tasks without explaining their actions or gaining consent. In one instance, a staff member began assisting a person without warning, which visibly startled them as they were asleep in a chair. Staff did not always consider the person’s comfort or dignity when delivering care.

We found further concerns regarding professionalism, including staff taking breaks in a person’s room whilst they were away from the home.

Feedback from relatives was generally positive. Relatives described staff as kind, caring and friendly, and said their loved ones felt comfortable with staff.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People did not always receive person-centred support to take part in meaningful activities. During the inspection, we observed some positive interaction, for example, a staff member engaged one person in a ball game and involved other people nearby. However, this was not consistent. Activity records showed that people who spent time in their bedrooms, including those cared for in bed, had limited opportunities for engagement and stimulation. There was a lack of varied activities and meaningful interaction, particularly for people who had reduced ability to communicate or participate independently.

We reviewed activity records covering a 42-day period from 1 April to 12 May 2026. These showed that most recorded activities were task-based, such as personal care, watching television, or remaining in their room, rather than meaningful or social engagement. For example, one person had 180 hours recorded as “social activity,” but this did not include any time spent outside. Another person had only 5 minutes of recorded social activity over the same period and three other people had no recorded social activity at all during this time.

There were several days where no activities were recorded. People did not consistently receive daily stimulation. This placed people at increased risk of social isolation.

Relatives told us they would like more opportunities for loved ones to access the community and would benefit from spending more time outdoors, including in the garden or visiting the local seafront. Feedback included, “There’s not enough to do. They could go out more, to the seafront or the garden” and “Staff don’t spend as much time as they used to. They seem busier than before the new managers.”
 

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider did not always ensure people had choice and control over their care, or that their independence and wellbeing were consistently promoted.

Staff supported people with personal care; however, this was not always carried out or recorded accurately. While some people appeared well cared for, others looked unkempt, with concerns such as long, dirty fingernails, unshaven facial hair and unclean clothing. Records showed baths had been completed, although the bath had been out of use for several months. This meant records did not reflect the care people actually received.

We reviewed the hygiene records for a 43-day period between 1 April to 13 May 2026. One person had 24 baths recorded over a six-week period, despite there being no working bath in the service. Relatives also raised concerns about the frequency of personal care, including showers, with one person recorded as receiving only three showers during this 43 day period.

People were not always supported in line with their preferences. We observed instances where dietary needs were not met, including a person who followed a vegetarian diet being supported to eat a meat-based meal. During our inspection another person was offered chicken when their preferred vegetarian option was unavailable. People were not always aware of meal choices, which limited their ability to make informed decisions. Individual needs, such as the use of adaptive equipment to support independence, were also not consistently followed.

We found gaps in meal provision, with long periods between meals and limited evidence of snacks being offered. Records showed gaps of up to 24 hours between substantial food intake for some people, including those who had experienced significant weight loss. For example, one person with an 8.76% weight loss had gaps of over 18 hours between meals on consecutive days. This placed people at risk of poor nutrition and dehydration.

Relatives told us portion sizes were small and meals did not always reflect people’s preferences.

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.

The provider had a new call bell system installed; however, the old system was still connected and whilst both systems were working some people could not reliably summon help when needed. For example, one person could not reach their call bell and instead used their walking stick to press it, as they could not reach it independently. Another person had access to two call systems; however, the one in use while they were in bed was not working. We tested this several times and it failed to alert staff. Whilst staff replaced this when we raised the issue, management had failed to identify this fault through their internal processes.

Care records and risk assessments were not always clear or consistent. This meant staff may not understand how best to support people safely. For example, one person’s care records stated they could use a call bell but then recorded they were unable to call for help when alone. Another person’s care records described, “call bell appropriate to be used”, however, within multiple other sections it described, “unable to use call bell.”

We identified occasions where equipment to support people’s safety and independence was not used effectively. For example, one person who was visually impaired and at high risk of falls did not have access to their walking aid, which had been left out of reach. Staff told us the person needed support to move safely, but they were not consistently enabled to do so.

Despite these concerns, relatives gave some positive feedback. They told us staff generally responded when people showed signs of discomfort or distress and took action to support them. During our visits when alarms were ringing, they were answered quickly.
 

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.

The provider had started to redevelop supervision arrangements, but these were at an early stage. The new management team found that previous records showed supervision was mostly one-way and did not support reflection, discussion or meaningful two-way engagement.

A staff meeting held on 6 May 2026 aimed to establish a baseline for future supervision. However, the meeting minutes did not show that supervision was discussed in detail. The minutes did record that leaders asked staff to suggest incentives that would be meaningful to them.

Leaders described actions taken to improve staff morale and accessibility. These included introducing a group communication channel and adopting an open-door approach. Leaders told us that staff morale had been low but had started to improve. At the time of the assessment, these changes were not yet fully embedded or supported by clear evidence.