Moorland Gardens Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive person centred support. We observed missed opportunities for compassionate engagement and always responding to people’s immediate needs positively. Care plans did not always accurately reflect people’s needs. There was evidence to indicate people had been woken up early by staff rather than them choosing to wake up early. However, we also observed many staff were kind and respectful, and relatives described them as caring and approachable.

Overall, people received timely support from external professionals, including GPs, nursing teams and specialists. Staff carried out regular checks, followed clinical advice when provided, and ensured referrals were made when people’s needs changed. Where people did not communicate in English as their first language, there were staff present who spoke people’s languages.

Relatives generally felt informed about important changes, and staff explained choices verbally during mealtimes and personal care. On the first day of our inspection, food choices were limited and we did not observe staff explain to people what was available or offer alternatives, which reduced people’s ability to make informed choices about their meals. However, following our feedback, menu visibility and presentation improved during our later visits.

People were not always listened to or involved in decisions about their care. Safeguarding concerns and incidents where people expressed distress were not always recognised or escalated, which meant people’s experiences were not consistently acknowledged or used to inform improvements. We also observed occasions where people expressed wishes in the moment were not acted upon, such as when a person asked to leave the dining room or declined support, and staff did not respond in line with their preferences

The provider had systems for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about
their care, treatment and support. Overall, people and relatives said they felt able to raise concerns and felt listened to. Residents’ meetings took place, and families felt their views were taken seriously. Systems were in place to document and manage complaints, concerns and compliments. A relative said, “The manager was responsive when we raised an issue and got it resolved.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received appropriate involvement from external healthcare professionals when concerns were escalated. Staff monitored people’s physical health and sought advice promptly once issues were identified.
 

Staff and leaders did not effectively review all information available about individuals' experiences. Safeguarding concerns were not always identified or reported. Leaders were not always aware of incidents relating to people when they experienced emotional distress. Although the provider took or planned action in response to our findings, we could not be assured staff and leaders had always actively used available information and tailored their care and support in response to this.

People had not always been supported consistently with planning for the end of their life. We found End-of-life care plans we reviewed during the inspection were overall generic and did not clearly reflect people’s personal wishes, cultural preferences or family involvement. In response to our findings the provider sent us examples of people’s end of life care plans we had not reviewed during the inspection that were more person-centred. Our findings meant there was an increased the risk of people’s wishes not being upheld at the end of their lives.