Moorlands Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and accidents were analysed by the manager to identify trends and take action where necessary, any areas for learning or training were picked up. Root cause analysis (RCA) were completed where necessary and we saw learning points from these led to processes being implemented. For example, an RCA identified there needed to be a process in place to ensure the lounge always had a member of staff, new paperwork was put into place to identify which member of staff would be responsible for this on a daily basis. We saw learning and new processes were shared with the team at meetings.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The home worked closely with district nurses and the primary integrated community services team to ensure the safety of the people living at the home. During the transition from nursing to residential, they ensured the safety of people by working with families and the local authority and allowing the transition to occur at a steady pace, so people had the time to find suitable new homes.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff had completed training in safeguarding and understood how to identify and escalate any potential safeguarding concerns. Staff said, “If I have concerns, I follow the safeguarding policy: record the facts clearly, report immediately to my manager or safeguarding lead, and escalate to the local safeguarding team or CQC if needed. I would never ignore concerns, and resident safety always comes first.”

Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and understood the principles and how to apply these practically for the safety of people. DoLS were effectively monitored and documented.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider approached risk management in a personalised and organised manner. They had a colour coded risk register which identified peoples risks and specific needs. People’s care plans then detailed what support they required from staff to maintain their safety.

Whilst we did feedback to the provider that risk assessments could be improved upon, care plans contained relevant information to support people with identified risks. For example, a personalised diabetes care plan showed how the condition might affect the person in a way specific to them. For people that had episodes of heightened agitation, clear guidance was in place for staff on how to deescalate in a personalised way. Following the feedback the manager provided evidence and assurances that they were reviewing and updating the risk assessments.

People’s relatives gave positive feedback on the support received by their loved ones.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Regular and appropriate checks were carried out to monitor the safety of the home, for example water temperature and fire checks. Where required, action was taken in a timely manner.

The environment was in need of some modernising and refurbishment, which the provider was aware of and had a plan in place to do so.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The management used a staffing dependency tool based on a risk register of people’s needs to establish how many staff were required on each shift. They carried out call bell response time audits to ensure people were assisted in a timely manner.

Staff were trained in subjects required to carry out their role effectively. Staff said, “I feel confident and well-trained in my role. If I ever felt the need for further training, I know that I can request it without hesitation. Support and guidance are always available.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

All staff were trained in infection prevention and control (IPC). The home manager was in the process of accessing additional training to appoint a member of staff as an IPC champion. An IPC policy was in place, and we observed this being followed by staff.

Whilst the home was clean, some areas of the home that were in need of refurbishment which could make cleaning less effective, however the provider was aware of this and told us there were plans underway to carry out necessary works.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People received their medicines, in their preferred way, from staff who were appropriately trained and competent to do so. Medicines were stored and managed in line with best practice guidance. Where people were prescribed medicines for ‘as and when required’ (PRN) guidance for the staff on how and when to support people to take these were in place. Controlled drugs, such as those to support people at the end of their life, were stored and recorded correctly.