Moorfield House

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. At the last inspection we rated this key requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff 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. The assessments were completed in a timely manner but at times were not wholly accurate. For example, people’s records did not accurately reflect whether they used a hoist or not, got out of bed or had items such as catheters in place. The information also needed to clearly describe how behaviours presented, triggers for changes in a person’s behaviour, the actions staff should take and what would reduce the chances of people becoming distressed. We discussed these matters with the regional manager and registered manager who acted immediately to address them.

The staff team 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. Staff ensured people’s health needs were monitored and they received a nutritious diet, which, when needed, followed dietitian’s guidance. The catering staff understood people’s needs and how to promote a healthy diet. The provider had worked collaboratively with a dietician to review the menus and the changes were being monitored to ensure they met people’s needs. Staff closely monitored people’s health and made sure they ate and drank well and were not showing signs of ill-health.

Staff worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared information about people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once. Staff worked closely with the local GP practice who ran weekly GP ward rounds in the service.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff assisted people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff liaised with external health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent care and support. Relatives reported people had experienced positive outcomes since moving to the service. A person said, “I can honestly say being here has improved my quality of life. I feel better and am better able to manage my health.”

Staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People, relatives and professionals reported individuals had experienced positive outcomes since moving to the service. Staff work as a team to ensure people’s support needs were met. We observed staff followed best practice around providing dementia care to support people to be more social and maintain their social facades.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and associated codes of practice. They completed capacity assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions. However, staff were not always considering whether a capacity assessment and ‘best interest’ decision were needed where the evidence suggested this would be the case. They also needed to complete decision specific assessments in a range of areas and provide more detail around how they assessed whether a person lacked capacity to make a decision. The registered manager immediately took action to ensure the documents were improved.