Moorlands Nursing 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 assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to providing personalised care to people.

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

There was a lack of meaningful activities occurring in the service. We observed some people were supported by staff to sit underneath the television in the lounge for the morning. Their positioning in the room meant watching the television was not an option. Engagement between the staff member in the lounge and people was not meaningful and was very fleeting. For example, a staff member picked up a newspaper reading out a small headline to a person before saying to them, “This looks interesting. Do you want a read?” The person did not respond so the staff member put the paper down and walked over to another person, commenting on their stuffed animal. Again, the staff member left the person after about 10 seconds. They went on to attempt to place a paintbrush in the hand of someone who was asleep.

One person’s communication care plan stated English was not their first language and they only understood very little English. Their emotional support care plan stated they liked to read a newspaper printed in their first language. However, we observed that no effort was made to try and communicate or engage with the person in the morning, nor to try and provide a printed newspaper in their first language. Therefore, people were not supported to engage in activities that were personalised, meaningful, or stimulating for them.

Relatives felt the activity provision in the service was lacking. One relative told us, “They could do with more staff sometimes as there is not enough activities for people here, I have noticed this. People are just sat around.” Another relative added, “There are areas of improvement, the residents are sitting in the lounge a lot of the time around one TV and some of the chairs are placed so they cannot even see it.”

There was also no interaction for people who were nursed in bed or stayed in their room., One person’s care plan said they were nursed in their room and were at risk of isolation which can severely impact their mental health. However, their care records showed they had only had 1:1 activity and engagement twice since January 2026.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People told us their care continuity was not always supported by staff. One person told us, “I used to get my medicines at 10.30am as I have anxiety but lately, they have been coming around 10:45-11am and it’s too late. If I don’t get them my brain starts going, I need my [continence support] at 11:30am and 16:30pm every day. Yesterday it was 18:00.” The person told us due to suffering with anxiety, lateness from their preferred timings and continuity of care caused their anxiety to increase. We raised this with the registered manager who informed us they would look into this.

There had been a recent large turnover in staff at the service which people told us they felt had temporarily affected their continuity of care. A person told us, “I don’t know what is going on, it seems to be all new staff now, I have not seen the ones I like.” A relative said, “I feel initially the new staff were task focused but this has changed in the past few weeks, they are treated like human beings.”

There had been varied experiences in how staff had worked alongside health professionals to provide joined-up care. One relative told us, “They have arranged doctors’ appointments for mum, they have got the palliative care team involved and have medicines just in case.” However, a health care professional described recent issues when trying to communicate with staff. They told us, “Communication with Moorlands has been very difficult in recent months. The phone is often not picked up and sometimes it just gives you a voicemail option. This is tricky when responding to SBARs (a structured communication tool used in healthcare to convey critical information clearly and efficiently) that have been sent through or even just communicating results or a conversation with a relative or hospital with them. I understand unless someone is present in that room then the phone cannot be heard elsewhere.” This left people at risk of not receiving integrated and cohesive care.

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

People’s communication needs were not always followed. For example, one person’s care plan confirmed English was not their first language. Whilst they could speak some English, the care plan stated that staff should use simple expressions and sign language to aid understanding. However, there was no further information on what sign language should be used or any particular prompts for staff. In comparison, the registered manager told us, “[One person] is visually impaired and she’s hard of hearing. She doesn’t wasn’t staff to read anything to her, then the [relative] said to us if you give it to me, I will communicate it to her.” Their care plan confirmed this information.

Relatives felt the care staff provided them with information and updates on their family member’s health and wellbeing. One relative told us, “I got a call at 12:50am this morning to say he was unwell.” Another relative said, “The notify me all the time. They call me and tell me what the plan is, they ring me for everything.” A further relative added that when their family member sustained an injury, “They called us and told the doctor straight away.” This allowed relatives to feel like they were still involved in their family member’s care.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had not responded to feedback and suggestions from relatives. A relatives meeting was held by the registered manager in January 2026. Within the meeting, relatives had asked for the service’s social media page to be reinstated and for a larger television to be purchased for the lounge. The meeting minutes had been shared with the provider, but no action to address the suggestions had been taken or explanation provided as to why they were not able to action this request. Furthermore, relatives had expressed their frustration at the operations manager not attending the meeting. Despite the operations manager receiving a copy of the meeting minutes, they did not arrange or attend a meeting until 4 months later in May 2026. The registered manager told us relatives “felt in the dark” due to the lack of input. This demonstrated feedback from people and relatives was not always listened to or acted upon.

The provider had also received compliments elements of the care being delivered. We reviewed the provider’s compliments folder which recorded that one relative had thanked staff by email for providing them lunch with their family member, additionally complimenting the food.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were no opportunities for people to take part in activities outside of the service. One person told us, “I would like to go out and get my shopping, that would be nice.” Another person told us, “There are no buses here and I would like to go out; that’s the only trouble.” When we asked a staff member if people were given the option to have trips out of the service, they told us, “Generally no. That because a lot of people wouldn’t be able to go anyway because they need hoisting.” However, options had not been explored on how this could be achieved so that people could access their local community. Therefore, people’s wishes around their personalised care were not being met.

Staff did support people to attend medical appointments at hospital. For example, one person had to attend the hospital twice a week for ongoing medical treatment. Their relative told us, “They always save her dinner and make her a packed lunch to take with her.” This flexibility and proactiveness from staff ensured the person received access to food and drink despite long regular appointments in hospital.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff ensured people were referred to independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) services when people lacked mental capacity and had no next of kin. This allowed people to have an independent professional voice to take part in discussions around their care to ensure any decisions were made in their best interest.

One person had experienced a lack of access to funds due to not having a next of kin and not having mental capacity to manage their finances themselves. Despite this, staff had ensured the person was still able to use the inhouse services to maintain their wellbeing. The registered manager told us, “[Person] has no one to pay for his hairdresser, yet the hairdresser provides free haircuts for him. We’ve paid for the chiropody for him once. As a team, we made a way for [person] to have these basic things. Once these things are done it boosts their self-esteem and [person] wants to talk to people.

People were 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.

People’s care plans included information around their wishes when planning for their future care. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPRs) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plans were recorded in people’s care plans where these were in place. These informed staff and medical professionals of people’s wishes should they require emergency medical treatment. End of life care plans also included information around funeral arrangements and who people would like around them in their final days.