Archived: Moorfields Care Home

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.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people who used the service, speaking with staff who supported them, observation and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

The provider had arranged for risk assessments to be carried out for people with mobility problems by professionals who were qualified to do so. This had been done to ensure that people had the right equipment in place to support them safely, for example hoist slings and wheelchairs.

Is the service effective?

The provider had carried out a review of the delivery of care and support that people received at the home. The provider had identified a number of areas that required improvement and changes were in the process of being made to improve the situation.

Is the service caring?

There was a good rapport between staff and people living at the home with frequent and friendly exchanges. People who were able to speak to us were complimentary about the support they received from staff.

We saw staff explaining to people what they were doing to support them. We saw that they encouraged those people who needed support to eat their meals and people were asked as appropriate if they required pain relief medication.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We saw that the provider had undertaken a review into the care and support that people received at the home. The provider had identified a number of areas that required improvement and was in the process of taking action to make the necessary changes.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had recently decided to take on the role of registered manager for the home and was near to completing the registration process with us.

The provider told us they accepted full responsibility for the situation they had found and said that although they were aware that change was difficult for staff but this must happen to improve the day to day experience of people living at the home. They said this was 'work in progress' and 'there was more to do.'

The people we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home and felt it was clean and well maintained. They told us their rooms were cleaned on a daily basis. We found the environment in the home to be clean, safe and well maintained.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the staff. They told us enough staff were available when they needed them. We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People's care records contained enough information to show how they were to be supported and cared for.

The people we spoke with told us they had no concerns around medication and were happy with the way staff supported them with their medication. They told us the staff were friendly and that they felt safe at the home.

They also told us that they had no concerns about the care they received and would speak to the registered manager if they had any concerns.