Moors Park House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Systems were in place to identify people’s individual needs and some people’s care plans contained good information. However, people did not always receive support in line with their individual needs. Staff told us that whilst they did their best to support people to exercise choice and control, at times staffing levels made this difficult and impacted on people. Most people and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. One person told us, “They’re looking after me well, they’re nice”. One relative said, ‘”The staff are lovely, they’re very kind, they hug and kiss Mum”. Another relative said, “We’re generally very happy with the care”. Staff told us they really cared about the people living at Moors Park House and enjoyed caring for them. One staff member said, “I would recommend this as a good place to work, because we are very kind and caring and we work as part of a team and try and do the best we can for people”. People’s families told us they felt people were well supported.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. One person told us, “They’re looking after me well, they’re nice”. One relative said, “The staff are lovely, they’re very kind, they hug and kiss Mum”. Another relative said, “We’re generally very happy with the care”.

Staff told us they really cared about the people living at Moors Park House, and enjoyed caring for them. One staff member said, “I would recommend this as a good place to work, because we are very kind and caring and we work as part of a team and try and do the best we can for people”. Other members of staff told us they found some days more challenging because of staffing levels and a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities.

Health professionals gave positive feedback about staff working at the service and felt they were caring and attentive to people’s needs, however, some concerns were raised over staff knowledge and skills when supporting people with complex needs.

We saw positive interactions between people and staff, and observed a craft session where the atmosphere was light and people clearly enjoyed the task they were completing. We saw people smiling and happy in the company of the staff member supporting them.

People’s families told us they felt people were well supported. One relative said, “He is encouraged to wash himself, which he is still able to do. He sees the hairdresser when needed”. Staff supported people to celebrate special occasions with their families.

Staff told us they knew people well, however, they raised concerns about the number of agency staff working at the service, because they didn’t always know people or understand their individual needs.

On the first day of our site visit we saw two agency staff working in the service for the first time. This meant they didn’t know the people they were supporting or their individual needs. We saw other staff knew people well and had kind and caring interactions.

Systems were in place to identify people’s individual needs and some people’s care plans contained good information. However, people did not always receive support in line with their individual needs. For example, where people needed one to one support, this was not always provided by staff who knew how to support them well, in part due to staffing availability.

People and relatives told us they were supported to be as independent as possible, for example making choices about what to wear, or what to eat.

Staff told us that whilst the did their best to support people to exercise choice and control, at times staffing levels made this difficult and impacted on people. For example, what time they got up, went to bed, or if they were able to have a shower or bath. Staff raised concerns that people who were unable to communicate their choices, sometimes did not receive an acceptable level of care.

We saw people having warm interactions with staff and taking part in activities; however, we also saw people looking for assistance from staff on a number of occasions and not being able to find a staff member to help them. We saw people looking for both practical support, such as wanting a drink or assistance to the toilet, and emotional support.

There were no systems in place to review how people were supported to live as they want to. Whilst some people’s care plans contained good detail about their individual wishes, there were no routine checks to ensure care was being delivered in line with their wishes.

People told us they sometimes had to wait for staff assistance, and we saw that staff were re-active to people’s needs rather than anticipating them in advance. This, at times, led to increased levels of anxiety for people.

Staff told us that they found it difficult to respond to people’s immediate needs because of staffing levels and the allocation of work. A lack of oversight of how each shift was progressing meant that some people did not have their immediate needs, such as continence care, met at an appropriate time.

During the first and second days of our site visit, the lounge and hallway were chaotic with staff and residents interacting. We saw people looking for staff for assistance, or to find a drink. We also saw people trying to leave the building. Whilst staff were responsive to people’s needs once they were expressed, we did not see them anticipating people’s needs or engaging people in things to distract them.

Staff told us they had seen some improvements in the level of support available to them over the previous 12 months. Staff felt comfortable raising concerns, although they did not always feel confident they were appropriately addressed. One staff member said, “staff morale is better and [the manager] actually listens to the staff and what we say”.

At our last inspection we found staff did not receive regular supervision. During this assessment we saw most staff had received one supervision in the previous 12 months, but no system had been embedded to ensure staff received regular and routine supervision and appraisal.