Archived: Moreland Trust

Updated 3 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 16 June 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care services; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

We looked at the information we held about the service. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at any statutory notifications we had received, which are notifications the provider must send us to inform us of certain events such as serious injuries. In addition we sought the views of local commissioners about the service prior to our inspection. We considered this information when we planned our inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with one person who received a service from Moreland trust by telephone. We spoke with the registered manager, and two members of the care team.

We reviewed a range of records about how people received their care and how the domiciliary care service was managed. We looked at two care records of people who used the service, three care staff records and records relating to the management of the service. The latter included records of spot checks carried out by managers on the quality of the service, call records, provider quality checks, complaint records and questionnaires/surveys from people.

Updated 3 September 2016

Our inspection took place on 16 June 2106 and was announced. We last inspected the service on 21 January 2014. At the last inspection we found the provider was meeting regulations.

Moreland Trust provides personal care to primarily Afro Caribbean older people with a range of needs in their own home. The service will cater for people of any cultural background however. At the time of the inspection they were providing a personal care service to two people.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were safe and there was sufficient staff to ensure they received the support they wanted. Systems in place identified risks to people. Staff were aware of these risks and how to minimise them. Staff were checked before they commenced work to ensure they had the aptitude and values to work with people. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People felt staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. People’s rights were protected as their consent was always sought before and during care. People had the support they wanted with their diets. Other health services were advised of changes in people’s health and circumstances with their agreement.

People thought staff were kind, caring and showed them respect. People felt their dignity and privacy was respected. Staff understood how to ensure people were able to make choices about their care. Staff supported people’s independence.

People were involved in their care, with involvement in their care plans and any changes to these. People’s care was provided in line with their agreed care plans. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences. People said they could complain and were confident concerns would be resolved.

People were confident the provider ran the service well. Systems were in place to capture and respond to people’s experiences and monitor the quality of the service. Staff were happy with their jobs and felt well supported.