Moorgreen

Updated 20 April 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection prevention and control measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Heathcotes (Moorgreen) is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. Heathcotes (Moorgreen) is a care home without nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. This information helps support our inspections.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and observed some interactions between people and the staff who were supporting them. We spoke with the registered manager and the provider’s head of service. We reviewed a range of records. This included two people's care records, three staff files and multiple medication records.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We asked the provider to give us additional evidence about how the service was managed. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We also received feedback from a relative of a person who lives at the service and feedback from four staff members.

Updated 20 April 2022

Heathcotes (Moorgreen) is a residential care home providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service. The service operates in a purpose-built care home and specialises in supporting people with emotionally unstable personality disorders. The service can support up to eight people.

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

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.

People were protected from the risk of abuse by the provider’s procedures and the training of the staff. People’s care needs were identified, and care plans created to guide staff in how to provide safe support. Staff understood people’s needs and the provider kept staff up to date with any changes in people’s care plans.

People were supported by enough appropriately trained staff to meet their needs, and there was always a more senior staff member on shift to provide necessary leadership if incidents occurred.

People’s prescribed medicines were safely managed. The care home was clean and hygienic. The necessary procedures were in place to prevent the spread of health infections as far as possible.

People living at the service had chosen to participate in dialectical behaviour therapy. That is a type of therapeutic talking therapy specially adapted for people who feel emotions very intensely. We received feedback that people found the therapy program to be helpful.

People were able to choose what they ate and drank. Staff helped people to choose a healthy diet and we received feedback that people found the support to be successful in improving people’s wellbeing.

People lived in a care home which was well maintained, homely, and which had been personalised by people. The provider had arranged activities based on the wishes and feedback received from people. People told us they enjoyed the activities.

People’s right to make their own decisions was respected and the provider obtained people’s consent before providing care.

People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness and respect. Staff spoke positively about people’s achievements and progress; and encouraged people to increase their confidence and independence.

People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends who were important to them. People, and relatives, knew how to raise concerns with the registered manager. But there had been no complaints received by the care home since the last inspection.

The service learned when things went wrong, and we saw the provider had implemented several changes following the involvement of the Coroner after the death of a person.

People were supported by a team who had a positive approach, high morale, and who were led by a registered manager who was committed to ensuring people received the best possible support.

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 16 May 2019).

Why we inspected

This comprehensive inspection was prompted, in part, by notification of a specific incident, following which a person using the service died. This incident was subject to an inquest by the Coroner, who raised concerns about the provider’s management arrangements and the support provided to prevent potential future deaths. The Care Quality Commission was asked to inspect the service to assess whether the provider had carried out the actions they had told the Coroner they would do; to reduce the likelihood of similar deaths occurring.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at continued risk of harm from this concern. Please see the Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led sections of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.