Moorland Gardens Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. The provider had not ensured people were treated with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Our observations and findings of people always being treated with kindness, compassion and dignity were mixed.
For example, on our first day of inspection, we heard a person become distressed while receiving personal care. The person repeatedly called out, “help me,” said the water was cold, and stated clearly that they did not want the care to continue. Staff did not offer reassurance, explanation or comfort during this interaction, and continued with the task while the person remained distressed. This did not reflect the guidance in their care plan, or what a senior staff member told us should have happened which states staff should have provided reassurance and clear communication.

However, we also observed positive interactions such as people being supported to eat and drink with kindness and gentle redirection when people were experiencing disorientation. A relative told us, “They always transfer my loved one to the bedroom so we can have some privacy.”
 

People were not always treated as individuals or in receipt of care that consistently reflected their personal preferences. While some care plans contained detailed information about people’s backgrounds, routines and what mattered to them, others included very limited or no life history information. This meant staff did not always have access to the information they needed to provide personalised care.

We found evidence of practice that did not always uphold people’s individuality. For example, feedback was mixed about whether people who were already awake early in the morning had chosen to be up, and some were not offered breakfast promptly. On another occasion, a person was repeatedly guided back to their chair despite attempting to access the activities trolley, and their care plan did not instruct staff to restrict them in this way. These inconsistencies showed that people’s preferences and autonomy were not always understood or respected.

People were not always supported to maintain independence or exercise choice and control over their care. As described in the ‘Consent to care and treatment’ section of this report, we found examples where staff did not follow the principles of the MCA or use the least restrictive approach. Inspectors observed an incident where a person clearly declined personal care and was distressed, yet staff continued without offering reassurance.

However, we also found examples where people were supported to make choices and engage in meaningful activities. Inspectors observed people choosing to take part in group sessions such as bingo, ball games and colouring, and one person told us they had enjoyed cooking activities and outings arranged by the activity team. Relatives described a varied programme and said their loved ones were encouraged to join in, with one family member stating there were “My loved one is encouraged to join in the activities; there is plenty of activities in the home.” The service also shared photographs to evidence activities people had been supported with and enjoyed including gardening, crafts, birthday celebrations, foot spas, cultural food experiences and live entertainment.

Staff did not always respond to people’s need in the moment and support them with managing and preventing emotional distress.
On the second day of our inspection, we observed a person wanted to leave the dining room and was visibly distressed, we heard the person tell a staff member ‘I want to leave.’ We observed a staff member offered them pudding but did not support them out of the room. The person was left to eat on their own while facing a wall. They soon after fell asleep in their chair.
However, we also observed staff had sought emergency medical attendance for a person who had been feeling unwell.
Following concerns identified during the inspection, the provider provided additional guidance and training during the inspection period to support the recognition and response to people’s immediate needs.
 

Overall, staff told us leaders promoted their wellbeing and that they felt well supported. A staff member said, “They do support me, I’m happy here.” Another staff member said, “We have a lovely manager, you can call her anytime and she will help.”