Moors Park House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Processes in place did not always support effective partnership working. The pre-assessment process was not robust and did not include in person visits. This resulted in some placements being unsuccessful. Staff did not always ensure they had all the relevant information prior to a person being admitted to the service. Processes in place did not always support effective partnership working. Staff told us people’s needs were assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. People and their families had been involved in care planning. When we spoke with people about the quality of the care they received and standard of care delivered, and no significant concerns were raised.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The lack of pre-assessment processes had a negative impact on people when people became distressed or interacted inappropriately with other service users. Once people were admitted to the service, their needs were assessed. People and their relatives told us they received care that met their needs. Relatives told us people’s personal preferences were respected.

Staff told us people’s needs were assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. Assessments included people’s communication needs and we saw staff communicating appropriately with people in line with their assessed needs.

An electronic care planning system was used and provided staff with a number of different assessment tools which were developed into care plans and gave staff good information about how to meet peoples needs. Assessments were kept under regular review by senior staff.

People and their families had been involved in care planning. When we spoke with people about the quality of the care they received and standard of care delivered, no significant concerns were raised. One relative told us, “I am always notified if she has a problem or needs anything. When we visit she is always clean and tidy and in good spirits. So I feel she is safe and well cared for”.

Staff told us they had completed both online and face to face training and felt confident they had the skills to deliver care in line with best practice. Managers told us they had further training sessions booked.

Work was ongoing to ensure all staff had completed required and relevant training. Kitchen staff had systems in place to ensure people received fluids and nutrition in line with their assessed needs and best practice standards.

People were supported by staff who shared information with other services, for example, if somebody transferred to hospital the relevant information went with them, however, this wasn’t always the case when people were admitted to the service. Staff sought advice from other professional services at appropriate times.

Managers told us they didn’t always get the information they needed from other services, and that this sometimes impacted on the care people received. For example, one person was given incorrect medication for 7 days, because the service did not receive the correct discharge information. Staff told us they felt confident referring to other healthcare teams as appropriate.

Health professionals told us that staff assured them they would utilise the partnership working available to them but did not always do this in practice. They felt this could sometimes lead to unsuccessful placements.

Processes in place did not always support effective partnership working. The pre-assessment process was not robust and did not include in person visits. This resulted in some placements being unsuccessful. Staff did not always ensure they had all the relevant information prior to a person being admitted to the service.

The service responded to peoples’ changing needs. People and their relatives said they received the support they needed when required, and felt confident staff supported people to access healthcare services. They also commented positively about the communication they received from the service management.

Staff spoke confidently and positively about the people they cared for. Staff supported people well with different aspects of their care, for example moving and handling and with their food and drinks.

People, or those acting on their behalf, were involved in the review and planning of care provision. There were process to review care plans with people where they wished to be involved.

People experienced varying outcomes. People’s physical health needs were generally well managed, however, people living with dementia didn’t always experience good outcomes. For example, people’s emotional needs were not always anticipated or well managed. This, at times, impacted on other people and their safety and in some cases resulted in placements being ended.

Staff told us they were committed to supporting people to achieve good outcomes. People’s care plans contained information about people’s goals and how staff could support them.

Processes were in place to monitor people’s outcomes. Risk assessments and care plans had built in monitoring processes which staff could use to track people’s progress over time. This meant they had information available to them to identify where intervention from other health professionals was needed.

People were supported in line with the law. People and relatives we spoke to did not raise any concerns about consent. We saw staff treating people with respect, giving them choices and respecting their privacy. For example, staff knocked on people’s doors before entering the room.

Staff understood the need not only to ensure people had consented to care, but that they were enabled to be empowered to do things independently with as little restriction as possible. Staff also understood which people had been assessed as requiring restrictions and supported them appropriately.

People’s capacity had been assessed where required and Deprivation of Liberty applications (DoLS) made where appropriate. This meant any restrictions to people’s freedom were being applied in line with the law. There was, however, no system in place to monitor DoLS applications or any conditions resulting from them.