Moorland House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and their relatives told us the service understood their diverse health and care needs and experienced their care as joined-up, flexible and supporting their choice and continuity. One relative told us they had shared their worries about an aspect of their family member’s treatment with the provider and how they had been supported with this. They told us, “They [the provider] checked with the GP and I got the reassurances that I needed.”

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies. We saw this included access to GPs, district nurses, chiropodists, dentists and mental health services. Staff gave examples of how they advocated on people’s behalf to ensure health and social care professionals understood people’s needs and preferences.

Healthcare professionals were positive about how the service worked with them. They told us the registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. This supported professionals to make decisions and meant they could respond promptly and appropriately to people’s changing needs.

The registered manager involved agencies when required and records of treatment and care decisions were updated promptly.

People and relatives told us they received information to support them to make decisions about people’s care. People told us staff supported them to understand the information so they understood the options available to them.

Staff understood people’s communication methods and styles which meant people remained actively involved in making decisions about their care. We heard staff explaining to a person what to expect from their upcoming hospital appointment and the outcome health professionals were hoping to achieve for them.

Information, such as a service user guide, was available for people to understand the service. Records detailed the outcomes of communications with a range of other agencies which ensured staff were able to provide people with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs . The provider was following the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Information was available in a variety of formats and where English was not someone’s first language, alternative language translations were available. Pictorial communication books were also used when people found it difficult to express their wishes.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.