This inspection took place on 24 February 2015 and was unannounced.
The Moorings is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for a maximum of three adults with profound and multiple learning disabilities, including autism, cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome and epilepsy and is managed by the provider, who is a Learning Disability Nurse.
People’s care needs were complex with limited or no verbal communication. They also required support with mobility. Two young adults, one male, one female, lived in the home full time and one person used the home for respite care on alternate weekends. All three people had their own personalised rooms, with ensuite facilities, and there were two bathrooms.
The home is not required to have a registered manager but the registered provider is a ‘registered person’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the home is run.
The provider had taken steps to make sure that people were safeguarded from abuse and protected from risk of harm. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe. One person told us, “He’s very happy there. He’s very important to them.” People were protected from harm as risks to their safety were assessed and managed appropriately. People, their families or representatives were involved as far as possible in their assessments and action to minimise risk was agreed with them. One relative said, “We are involved in all discussions about important issues, such as the cameras.”
The provider operated safe recruitment procedures which included carrying out legally required checks on every applicant to make sure they were suitable to work with the people who lived at this home. Staff told us there was a good atmosphere and staff worked as a team. One staff told us, “It’s very demanding but very rewarding.” We saw there were enough staff to care for people and keep them safe.
Regular health and safety checks of the home’s environment were made and any works required noted for attention by the maintenance man. Fire equipment and emergency lights were regularly serviced and tested.
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded by suitably trained staff. Records were comprehensive and up to date and there was a robust policy for “as required” (PRN) medicines.
Hygiene and infection control were maintained by cleaning schedules and hand-washing practices.
Staff were provided with suitable training to enable them to carry out their roles. Staff told us, “We have all of the essential training and specific training for the complex needs of the people here.”
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. They told us they felt, “Listened to.” Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to make sure they were competent to deliver appropriate care and treatment.
Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the manager was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. Whilst no-one living at the home was currently subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard DoLS, we found that the manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one and was aware of a recent Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty. The manager had submitted applications to the Local Authority in relation to DoLS and these were being processed.
Staff received MCA and DoLS training to make sure they knew how to protect people’s rights. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent from people and carrying out best interest meetings before care or treatment was provided.
People were provided with a varied and nutritious diet which was included food which the people enjoyed. Staff were both patient and used specially adapted cutlery and crockery to support people to eat as independently as possible.
People’s health care needs were managed by staff together with involvement from a variety of external healthcare professionals.
People were treated with respect, kindness and compassion. Each person had an individual care plan. These were continually reviewed and updated to make sure all their needs were understood by staff. Relative’s told us they had been consulted about how they wanted their loved one’s care to be delivered.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Their privacy was protected wherever possible and staff spoke to people, not over them. Staff knew people well. They were calm and patient with people; they communicated effectively and responded quickly.
Care plans were regularly reviewed with the person’s relatives, health professionals and, if relevant, social homes to make sure they were up to date and reflected their individual preferences, health needs, interests and aspirations. There were a wide variety of outside activities arranged to involve people in the wider community.
There was a policy and procedure in place for dealing with complaints. Relatives we spoke with told us they hadn’t needed to complain but knew what to do if they did. They also said, “The manager is very approachable” and they would be “Confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with.”
There were effective systems in place to review the quality of all aspects of the home regularly. Relatives’ surveys and regular ‘resident and relatives’ meetings gave people the opportunity to comment on the quality of the home. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the home was run. The manager and staff worked hard to enable people to live happy, interesting and fulfilling lives despite their complex and extensive needs.
We saw good leadership by example during our inspection and a culture of doing everything possible to enhance the quality of life for people.