Archived: Moorgate Lodge

We found the following examples of good practice.

Visitors to the home were required to follow infection control procedures and were asked to complete a lateral flow test. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was then supplied. People were supported following government guidance to see friends and relatives and access the community.

Professional visitors were required to show a negative lateral flow test and evidence of COVID-19 vaccination.

Social distancing was encouraged as far as it was practicable to do so. Staff wore appropriate PPE, regularly washed their hands and applied hand sanitiser. Staff had completed training in infection control, COVID-19 and putting on and taking off PPE.

Staff and people using the service took part in the home’s testing programme. Actions were swiftly taken when anyone tested positive with COVID-19. The registered manager had followed guidance during the recent outbreak to reduce risk of cross infection.

Regular meetings were held with staff to discuss issues relating to COVID-19. The welfare and well-being of staff was discussed to ensure staff received the support they required.

The home was predominantly clean and well maintained. Staff had access to cleaning products and cleaning schedules were followed and reviewed. Increased cleaning had been implemented for high touch areas such as door handles and handrails.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ People were protected against the risk of infection.

¿ The home had systems in place to support relatives to visit their family members, minimising the risk of infection. The provider had installed a visiting pod, the pod was segregated with separate entrances for people and their relatives. This was fitted with an intercom and was thoroughly cleaned between visits. The only exceptions to these arrangements were visits to people placed on end of life care. Visits took place by prior arrangement; relatives had a lateral flow test (LFT) and personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn. Zoom calls had also been facilitated for relatives who were unable to visit.

¿ The registered manager and staff had considered how to prevent social isolation during the pandemic. They had put in place additional activities to ensure people’s well-being.

¿ The provider had regularly updated policies and procedures to ensure they included changes and best practice guidance in relation to COVID-19. Staff had access to these, and they were regularly discussed at team meetings and supervision sessions to ensure staff had the most up to date information.

¿ We observed staff changed PPE, when appropriate, and washed and sanitised their hands. Staff changing facilities had been provided. Following our inspection, the provider improved these facilities to provide a dedicated room with WC and hand washing facilities to minimise the risk and spread of infection.

¿ Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with guidance. Staff also had regular LFT to ensure any staff who were not presenting with any symptoms were identified promptly.

¿ The premises were clean and well maintained. There was a cleaning schedule in place and adequate cleaning hours to ensure it was maintained. Additional cleaning of high use areas had been implemented, including door handles, and handrails. We identified some areas that required attention that had not been picked up by the quality monitoring. However, the provider actioned these immediately and amended the audit tool to ensure any areas requiring attention were identified in future audits.

¿ Staff had completed training in infection control, COVID-19 and how to put on and take off their PPE. Staff were frequently briefed about changes in government advice that impacted on their role. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

¿ Risk assessments were in place to consider and reduce any impact to people who used the service and staff who may be disproportionately at risk of COVID-19. These included Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups (BAME), people with learning disabilities and people with dementia.

Moorgate Lodge is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 45 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 54 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified and actions taken to minimise risks. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training in safeguarding and knew what action to take if they felt people were being abused. Staff confirmed they had been safely recruited.

Accidents and incidents were analysed, and trends and patterns were identified. Medicines were managed in a safe way to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

People’s needs were assessed, and care was delivered in line with their preferences and choices. Staff received support, induction and training to ensure they had the skills to carry out their role. Staff were complimentary about the provider and felt they were very supported in their role.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy and balanced diet in line with their dietary requirements. People had access to healthcare professionals.

Staff we spoke with told us how they respected people and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained. People were involved in the planning of their care and were able to make decisions about the support they received. Staff enjoyed their role and were happy to know they had made a difference and supported people to meet their outcomes.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We observed staff interacting with people in a positive way. People told us they enjoyed living at the service. We received positive feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people’s dignity was upheld.

Care plans were organised and easy to follow detailing people’s needs and how these were to be met. People were supported in line with their needs and preferences. People enjoyed a range of social activities which were meaningful. People who used the service had access to a complaints procedure and were encouraged to make complaints where required. Complaints were followed up and responded to in line with the providers policy.

The provider ensured people were supported and their preferences maintained at the end stages of their life.

Care was planned in a way that promoted people’s independence. Staff were committed in providing a high level of care to people who used the service. People who used the service had the opportunity to express their views. The provider had a range of audits in place to monitor the service delivery, most issues we identified on inspection had previously been identified. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 18 October 2017). Since this rating was awarded the registered provider of the service has altered its legal entity. There was also an inspection on 16 September 2019, however, the report following that inspection was withdrawn as there was an issue with some of the information that we gathered.

Why we inspected

This is a planned re-inspection because of the issue highlighted above.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.