You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The inspection took place on 21 and 26 September, 2 and 11 October, and 1 November 2017 and was unannounced.

Moorings Nursing Home is registered to provide care and accommodation with nursing care for up to 39 people some of whom may be living with dementia and/or mental health conditions. When we inspected there were 37 people living in the service.

Improvements were needed to staff training. Staff had not received training in subjects that specifically meet the needs of people who use the service. We have also made a recommendation about providing staff with regular support and development of their skills.

Although there was a registered manager in post, on the second day of our inspection they were not available. The provider appointed a new interim manager who, together with a senior care assistant provided as much information as they could for this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The recruitment process was usually robust. However, the sudden changes in management and staff had caused staffing issues which the new interim manager was trying to sort out by quickly recruiting appropriate staff, to help keep people safe and to meet their needs.

People received a safe service and were protected from the risk of harm. The electronic medication system was good and people received their medication as prescribed.

The service supported people to have as much choice and control over their lives in the least restrictive way possible. People received sufficient food and drink to meet their needs and preferences. Their health was monitored and their healthcare needs were met.

Staff knew people well and they were kind, caring and empathetic in their approach. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence as much as they were able to. Staff ensured that people’s privacy was maintained and treated them with dignity and respect at all times.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and care planning process. The care plans and assessments had been regularly reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs. People were encouraged and supported to participate in activities of their choosing which suited their individual interests. Complaints were dealt with appropriately in a timely way.

People were positive about the quality of the service. The new interim manager and staff were committed to providing people with a good quality person centred service that met their needs and preferences. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of harm.

Although staff had been safely recruited and there were usually sufficient suitable, skilled and qualified staff to meet people�s assessed needs, the sudden changes to management and staff had caused staffing problems which the interim manager was in the process of sorting out.

Medication management was good and ensured that people received their medication as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was not consistently effective.

Improvements were needed to training in service specific subjects and to staff supervision.

The registered manager and staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied it appropriately.

People had sufficient food and drink to meet their individual needs and they experienced positive outcomes regarding their healthcare needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was caring.

People received their care from kind, caring staff who were compassionate in their approach.

People and their families were fully involved in their care and support and were encouraged to follow their faith.

Advocacy services were available when needed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s involvement in their assessment and care plans ensured that staff had good information about how people wanted their diverse needs to be met.

There was a good complaints procedure that was easily available for people to refer to. People could be confident that their complaints and concerns were dealt with appropriately and to their satisfaction.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was well-led.

Management at the service had been consistent over the last three years. However, sudden changes to the management had recently caused some staffing problems that the new manager was sorting out.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service and drive improvements.