Archived: Moorcroft House

Moorcroft House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for three people. The home provides care and support for people with learning disabilities who may have additional physical needs. At the time of the inspection there was one person using the service.

At the time of our inspection the service had a manager in post that was registered with the Care Quality Commission. However, they had been absent from work since April 2016. The nominated individual was acting as the manager in their absence and had applied for registration with CQC. 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.

At our last inspection of the service on 08 September 2016 we rated the service as "Requires Improvement". This was because we found deficiencies in the way medicines and recruitment were managed. This meant the provider was in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan setting out the actions they would take to meet the regulation. During this inspection we found appropriate systems were in place to ensure that people's medicines and staff recruitment were managed in a proper and safe way.

Staff followed the service's policies and procedures to protect people from a potential harm and abuse. Care plans were linked to risk assessments to guide staff on the support people required to stay safe. Robust systems were in place to check staff's suitability for the post before they started working with people. When necessary, cover was provided to ensure adequate staffing levels at the service. Staff were trained and followed the service's requirements on how to manage medicines safely.

Staff were provided with appropriate training for their role. Staff supported people to book and attend their health appointments as necessary. People made choices about the food they wanted to eat. Staff received support to carry out their responsibilities as necessary, this included regular supervision meetings.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and staff were provided with regular training and supervision. We found there were enough staff on shift to meet people's needs.

People were involved in the planning of their care and support where possible. Care plans contained information about people's wishes and preferences. They showed people's skills in relation to tasks and what support they required from staff, in order that their independence was maintained. People had involvement in the regular reviews of their care and support.

People were relaxed in staff's company. People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was respected. Staff were kind and patient in their approach, but also used good humour. Staff had built up relationships with people and were familiar with their life stories and preferences.

People had a varied diet and could be involved in planning the menus. Staff supported people's dietary needs and requests. People had a programme of leisure activities and went out and about as they wished.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff described the registered provider as supportive.

Moorcroft House Care Home is located in a residential area close to local facilities, shops and transport links. It provides accommodation for up to three people who have a learning disability. At the time of this inspection there was one person using the service.

The service had a registered manager. However, they were absent from work since April 2016. The nominated individual was acting as the manager in their absence. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The person we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. They expressed that they were happy at Moorcroft House and did not want to live anywhere else.

There was sufficient staff to meet the person’s needs and to ensure they could take part in activities of their choice.

Procedures in relation to recruitment and retention of staff required improvement as two files required evidence to confirm the staff member’s identity. We received email confirmation from the acting manager that the documents were in place to ensure only suitable people were employed in the service.

Care plans were person centred and contained information needed to ensure staff could deliver care safely.

The acting manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of this inspection the acting manager told us the person who used the service had capacity, therefore no application was required at this time.

Medication procedures were in place including protocols for the use of ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medication. Staff had received training in medication management and medication was audited in line with the provider’s procedures. However, some improvements were needed to ensure medication received in the home was accurately recorded.

We observed good interactions between the staff member on duty and the person who used the service. We saw staff encouraged the person with their exercise programme from the physiotherapist. However, the written records we saw did not confirm that the programme had been completed daily as requested.

The person told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it.

Quality monitoring systems needed to improve, to ensure they were effective. For example, the medication audit in August 2016 did not identify a particular discrepancy in the amount of medication kept at the home. Infection prevention and control also needed some improvement, as there were unpleasant odours in one of the bedrooms.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Each person had a care file which detailed their health and care needs as well as risks associated with their care. We also saw people's preferences and abilities were recorded in good detail.

The people we spoke with told us they were involved in a variety of social activities in the community and carried out day to day living skills, such as cleaning their rooms and food shopping.

The premise was generally in good condition and was clean and fresh. The people we spoke with said they were happy with their rooms and the home's general facilities.

People who used the service, and the staff we spoke with, said there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. We saw they received the support they needed in a timely manner from staff who were competent in their role.

There were systems in place to gain people's views and check if the service was operating appropriately. When we asked people if there was anything they would like to improve they all said they were very happy with the care they received and could think of nothing they would change.

People's comments indicated they received the care and support they needed and they were happy with how staff delivered their care. They told us, 'The staff are kind' and 'I am happy living here I do everything I want to do.'

We saw people were encouraged to be involved in social activities in the community and carried out day to day living skills, such as cleaning their rooms and making sandwiches.

People received a well balanced diet and were involved in planning menus. Staff promoted healthy eating and checked people were eating and drinking properly.

There were systems in place to make sure people received their medications safely and we saw staff had completed training in this subject.

Checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the home to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This included ensuring they underwent a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

We saw the complaints procedure was available to people who used and visited the service. People told us they felt comfortable taking any concerns to the manager or their keyworker.