Archived: Moorgate Lodge

Moorgate Lodge is a care home which provides care for up to 56 older people. The home also provides nursing care. The service in located on the outskirts of Rotherham. The home is divided into three units on three different floors. There is plenty of parking and people have access to secure gardens. At the time of our inspection there were 54 people using the service.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

We spoke with people who used the service and they told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff we spoke with knew what action to take if the suspected abuse and knew how to protect people. Staff felt the registered manager would act on any concerns they brought to their attention.

We spoke with people and their relatives and observed staff interacting with people throughout the inspection. We found there were enough staff available to respond to people when they required support.

The provider had a system in place to ensure people received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

Staff had been recruited to work at the home using a safe recruitment system. This ensured that pre-employment checks were carried out prior to staff commencing employment. Staff who had not worked in care prior to their appointment at the service completed the ‘Care Certificate.’ This was based on fundamental skills and knowledge required for working in a care setting. All staff employed completed an induction to the service which included general information about the home and any training required prior to them commencing their role.

People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals provided at the home. We observed meals to be nutritious, appetising and people’s preferences were considered. Staff provided appropriate support to people who required assistance with eating and a relaxed atmosphere was evident.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Care records clearly evidenced the support people needed to make decisions about their care. People were involved in their care and staff sought consent prior to completing a task.

Staff were trained and supported to do their job well. Staff knew people well and supported and understood their needs well. People had access to health care professionals when required.

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and found they were kind and caring. Staff involved people in their care and maintained their privacy and dignity.

People received care which was in line with their current needs. Social stimulation was provided by two activity co-ordinators who arranged a variety of different events. People knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any problems would be rectified.

The service was led by a management team who were supportive to staff and people who used the service and their relatives. People were asked their views and opinions about the home and were involved in meetings to discuss them. The service conducted audits to ensure the home was providing a good service. Any issues identified were addressed

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations, speaking with staff who were supporting people who used the service and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the service was safely run. Audits were carried out by the registered manager.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed and care plans were designed to meet the needs of people who used the service. Relatives of people who used the service told us that they felt involved in their relatives care, and were able to contribute to their care plan.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and saw that they were patient and gave time for people to respond. Care plans included people’s interests, likes and dislikes. This ensured that people’s preferences were considered as part of their care.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service who told us that they felt their relative was cared for appropriately. One relative said, “I have no concerns about the care provided to my relative.”

Is the service responsive?

The service had activity co-ordinators who planned social events and daily activities for people who used the service. We observed people taking part in activities that were suitable. People also joined in from a distance which suited their needs.

People received appropriate support to ensure there nutritional needs were met. Care plans told us that staff responded appropriately to issues such as weight loss and difficulties in swallowing. Dieticians and speech and language therapists were consulted where needed.

We spoke with relatives of people who used the service who were able to discuss anything with the manager or the staff. One relative said, “The managers door is always open and he always makes time for me.”

Is the service well-led?

We spoke with staff that were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt able to speak with the nurses or the manager if they needed to. Staff saw the importance of involving people and their relatives to improve the service.

There was a quality assurance system in place which was completed throughout the year. The manager acted on suggestions made and discussed the outcome of the survey with people who used the service and their relatives.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because their records had been reviewed and updated regularly.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. However staff said they found the care records difficult to follow.

We found that people received adequate food and hydration to meet their needs. However some people told us that the quality of food was sometimes not as good as it should be, and the food could be hotter. People told us there was always plenty of choice of meals.

We found systems protected people who used the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication. However the storage of medication required attention.

People we spoke with and their relatives told us they felt there were not enough staff to meet people's needs. One relative said that she sometimes struggled to find staff to talk to when she visited her relative because the staff were always busy.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

Some records did not reflect the care and treatment provided to people who used the service.

We undertook this visit to review the provider's compliance with the compliance actions. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found that improvements had been made which ensured they had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.