Moorleigh Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 ensured people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, wellbeing, and communication needs in partnership with them. Assessments were carried out regularly, and care plans mostly reflected peoples care needs, we did however find that care plans in relation to medication were not always kept up to date. Staff understood people’s individual needs. When required, referrals were made to health professionals such as the district nurse and speech and language team.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The provider used recognised assessment tools to help determine the most appropriate care and treatment people required. People’s dietary needs and preferences were clearly recorded in their care plans, and people were able to choose what they wanted to eat. However, we identified inconsistencies in the management of thickened fluids. One person’s drinks were recorded as thickened on their fluid intake chart, yet their nutritional care plan stated that the service was trialling thickeners following liaison with the GP pending a speech and language therapy assessment (SaLT) Although a prescribed thickener with dosing instructions was available, not all recorded drinks included thickener as required. Another person prescribed thickener did not have an administration chart or a fluid monitoring chart in place.

People told us they enjoyed the food, with one person commenting, “I can have what I want to eat.” During our observations of lunchtime, the atmosphere was relaxed. However, meals were not tailored to individual preferences; for example, people were not shown plated meal options, nor were they routinely asked about additions such as gravy or sauces. We did, however, observe staff offering alternatives and second helpings.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People’s assessments and needs were shared with professionals when they moved between services.

Visiting professionals, including GPs and therapists, provided staff with relevant guidance, and this was recorded in people’s care plans. Staff also kept records of each visit and the outcomes.

People told us they had good access to external health and social care services, such as dentists and opticians. One relative commented, “They get the health professionals straight away.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider ensured that appropriate referrals were made when underlying health concerns were identified and additional support was required.

However, we saw very little evidence of people being offered meaningful activities to support their emotional wellbeing. Although the provider employed an activity staff member to facilitate and deliver a range of activities throughout the week, the impact of this provision was limited. Many people were unable to participate in group-based activities, and both the activity coordinator and care staff had limited capacity to provide individual engagement. This was fed back to the registered manager, who acknowledged that additional hours were needed to enable the activity coordinator and staff to provide more positive and meaningful interactions. The registered manager was working with the provider regarding this need.

People’s care and treatment was routinely monitored to help ensure needs were met and care could be improved. Outcomes for people were consistent and met their expectations. The provider ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had systems in place to monitor known healthcare risks, such as repositioning. We found records to support people’s fluid intake, and most documentation was detailed and appropriately completed. However, one person who required thickened fluids did not have a fluid monitoring chart in place.

Care plans were reviewed regularly, and health professionals visited the service to support people’s healthcare needs.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the service and felt staff monitored needs effectively. One person told us, “I like living here; the staff always check that I am okay.”

People were supported to have control over day-to-day choices. Staff were patient with people, giving them time to make their own choices. People and families were involved in core decisions about their care.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.

People told us staff always sought their consent before supporting them. One person told us, “‘They always ask what I want to do, things aren’t done to you, they are done with you”