Moors Park 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

We identified two breaches of regulation. People’s needs were not always fully assessed prior to admission to the service. People’s care plans did not always give staff sufficient direction as to how to meet people’s individual needs. There was no system in place to monitor and review complaints. In person assessments were not always completed prior to admission, and there had been a number of unsuccessful admissions in recent months. Staff told us they had concerns about the consistency of the quality of care people received, including personal and continence care. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, however, they did not always feel they were acted on appropriately. Improvements had been made to people’s care plans and some contained good information, however, care plans lacked information about how staff could support people with their emotional needs. People’s relatives told us they felt confident staff communicated well and updated them on any changes to their relative’s health needs.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There had been a number of unsuccessful admissions in recent months. Improvements had been made to people’s care plans and some contained good information, however, care plans lacked information about how staff could support people with their emotional needs. This meant staff had little guidance when people living with dementia became unsettled and, at times, aggressive towards other people.

Staff told us they had concerns about the consistency of the quality of care people received, including personal and continence care. One staff member told us this could depend on who was on shift, and if the scheduled ‘continence checks’ had been completed. Another staff member said people weren’t always given choices, and could be treated poorly.

We saw most people had been appropriately assisted, for example, they were dressed appropriately and had items that were important to them, such as personal jewellery. However, we did see that several female service users had overgrown fingernails with chipped varnish and dirt beneath the nails.

People experienced generally appropriate continuity in their care. For example, follow up visits by health professionals after admission. On occasion, important information about people’s needs or health conditions wasn’t well communicated, which impacted on outcomes.

Staff and leaders told us they worked with other health professionals to ensure continuity in care, however, they sometimes found they did not have enough information to ensure this happened in practice.

Health professionals told us staff at Moors Park House sought support at appropriate times.

Processes in place were not always robust enough to ensure good continuity of care between services.

People’s relatives gave positive feedback. One said, “I was recently invited to attend a review for my Dad with the assistant manager, which was very thorough”. People’s relatives told us they felt confident staff communicated well and updated them on any changes to their relative’s health needs.

Staff had access to people’s care records and understood their needs. There were twice daily handovers of information to communicate any immediate changes, and regular staff meetings were being held.

People were asked for their views informally, and there were opportunities for people and families to speak to management and staff when they wished to. Relatives who held a Lasting Power of Attorney for people who no longer had capacity to make certain decisions were appropriately consulted. Relatives did not raise any concerns about the level of communication they received from the service.

People’s relatives told us they felt comfortable raising complaints. One relative said, “It was always easy to speak to the manager who was always welcoming, friendly and supportive”.

Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, however, they did not always feel they were acted on appropriately. One staff member said, “following an investigation, nothing is followed up – there are no consequences and therefore no change”. Staff also raised concerns about confidentiality, and concerns raised being discussed with the wider staff team.

At our last inspection we found there was no complaints process in place. During this assessment we were told no complaints had been received, and therefore there were no records to review. However, we found there had been 5 complaints raised by members of staff. Because these had not been recorded as complaints there was no process of reviewing the complaints received to establish and themes or trends. No records were available to evidence any effective investigation or outcomes to the complaints made.

People did not raise any concerns about accessing services.

Staff knew how to access services, including out of hours and in an emergency.

Partners did not raise any concerns about accessing services.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to services as required. For example, people’s care plans contained information about the services that were supporting them.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality and protected their rights. Care was personalised and in line with people’s preferences. People spoke positively of the care staff that supported them and felt as much involved as they wanted to be in planning their care and support.

Staff told us that at times, staffing levels impacted the people receiving care when they needed it and in line with their wishes and preferences. Staff and service management ensured all of the people living in the service received equitable care.

Care records showed that some people’s information was personalised to them and contained good detail about their personal preferences and individual needs, whilst others required more information to help staff support people appropriately. Care records were regularly reviewed.

When we spoke with people and their relatives, no concerns were raised in relation to planning for the future. However, we found improvements were needed around people’s end of life care planning because care records lacked information about people’s end of life preferences.

Staff told us care records were limited relating to end of life care preferences because people or their relatives did not always like to discuss this. They advised that care plans would be updated to reflect where conversations regarding end of life arrangements had occurred.

Systems were in place to support people in planning for the future, however these had not been fully utilised at this assessment.