Archived: Moorfields Care Home

Updated 20 August 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection which took place on 20 July 2016. The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. Prior to the inspection we reviewed the PIR and looked at information we held about the service and provider, including notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also asked the local authority and Bury Health watch for their views on the service; they raised no concerns.

During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, three visitors, the registered manager, deputy manager, coordinator, three care workers and the cook.

As some people were not able to tell us about their experiences, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

We carried out observations in public areas of the service. We looked at three care records and seven medication records. We also looked at a range of records relating to how the service was managed including three staff personnel files, staff training records, duty rotas, policies and procedures and quality assurance audits and other records.

Updated 20 August 2016

Moorfields Care Home is situated in its own grounds, on the outskirts of Bury. The accommodation is divided over two floors. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home. The service was last inspected in May 2014 when it was compliant with the regulations reviewed and in force at that time.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on the 20 July 2016.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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. People we spoke with were very complimentary about the registered manager, the home and the way it was organised and run. We found the registered manager to be committed to providing a responsive and good quality service

People told us they felt safe at Moorfields Care Home. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. They were also aware of the responsibility to ‘whistle blow’ on colleagues who they thought might be delivering poor care to people.

There was a safe system of recruitment in place to help to ensure people using the service were protected from unsuitable staff. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to be able to deliver effective care.

Medicines were stored safely and securely and procedures were in place to ensure people received medicines as prescribed

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Moorfields Care Home. Care plans were written in a person centred way and contained good information about people’s support needs, preferences and routines. Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and staff. They described potential risks and the safeguards in place. People and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing the care provided.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out and equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately.

We found the home to be clean and free from offensive odours. All the bedrooms we looked at were well decorated, had non slip flooring and were personalised with people’s own possessions, including photographs. Communal areas were bright and homely and were decorated with pictures, photographs and ornaments. The home was undergoing a programme of refurbishment to improve the experience of the people who used the service; this would include a new dining area and bar.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people’s rights and choices were protected when they were unable to consent to their care and treatment in the service. Staff had received training in and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was working within the principles of the MCA.

People had their health needs met and had access to a range of health care professionals. People at risk of poor nutrition and hydration had their needs regularly assessed and monitored. The food within the service was nutritionally balanced and plentiful. All the people we spoke with told us the food was good.

All the people we spoke with were positive about the service and the caring attitude of the staff and the registered manager. During our inspection we found the atmosphere to be relaxed and homely. Staff were caring, polite, friendly and supported people in an unhurried way. Staff spent time sat talking with people. Visitors told us they were made to feel welcome at the home.

There were a range of activities and social events on offer to reduce people’s social isolation. People told us they enjoyed the activities.

There was a complaints procedure for people to use if they wanted to raise any concerns about the care and support they received. There was a system in place to record complaints and the service’s responses to them. People were confident that they would be listened to and action would be taken to resolve any problems they had.

Staff we spoke with were very positive about the registered manager and working for the service

We found there was a good system of quality assurance in place. There were a number of weekly and monthly checks and audits. People told us they could raise any issues with the registered manager and deputy manager. There was a system for gathering and responding to people’s opinions about the service.

The service had notified CQC of any accidents, serious incidents, safeguarding allegations and DoLS applications as they are required to do.