This inspection took place on 30 August 2017. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and registered provider did not know we would be visiting. The service was last inspected on 16 April 2015. Moorend Place is a nursing home that provides care for up to 58 older people. It is a purpose built care service. At the time of our inspection 53 people were living at the service.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
People told us they felt ‘safe’. Safeguarding procedures to protect people from abuse were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.
We found people’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and in response to any change in needs.
The service had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely so people were protected from the risks associated with medicines.
People and relatives did not have any concerns about the staffing levels at the service. We saw there were sufficient staff to provide support to people living at the service.
The recruitment systems were designed to make sure new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work at the service.
We noticed that some staff had been working at the service for a significant amount of time with no further Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks recorded. We recommend the registered provider considers requesting staff to complete an annual self-declaration relating to criminal convictions incurred since their previous criminal record check was provided.
During the inspection we did not find any concerns about infection control. The service was clean and smelt fresh.
People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the quality of care they received. Their comments included: “I can’t fault it [care],” “They [staff] do their very best. I’m quite satisfied with the care given,” “Quite nice, big enough, it’s like a home from home,” “It is brilliant” and “It’s like one big family.”
All the relatives we spoke with were satisfied with the quality of care their family member received. Some of the relatives also told us they would recommend the service. Their comments included: “Such care taken, such concern shown, the staff are always smiling” and “Yes, I would recommend it, it’s well run and supervised.”
Some of the people and relatives we spoke with described how well staff supported people living at the service who became anxious or agitated. One relative said, “The staff are wonderful with them; they deal with them [people] calmly, professionally and affectionately.” A nurse we spoke with described how staff optimised engagement and distraction when people became anxious or worried.
All the people we spoke with made positive comments about the quality of the food at the service. People also told us there were snacks and drinks available between mealtimes.
Staff told us they felt supported and told us there was a good team working at the service. Staff had received appropriate supervision and appraisals to enable them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff enjoyed working at the service. They knew people well and were able to describe people’s individual likes and dislikes.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected. All the people we spoke with made positive comments about the staff. Their comments included: “I can’t fault them [staff], they are great,” “They [staff] have time to chat and ask if things are okay” and “The staff are always smiling.”
There were end of life care arrangements in place to ensure people had a comfortable and dignified death.
Staff handovers enabled information about people’s wellbeing and care needs to be shared effectively and responsively.
We saw the service promoted people’s wellbeing by taking account of their needs including activities within the service. We received positive comments about the activities worker and we saw how well they interacted with people. We saw the service would benefit from having an additional activities worker to support people to further participate and engage in more personalised and smaller group activities. Following the inspection the registered manager informed us that an additional activities worker would be recruited for the service.
We saw there was a robust process in place to respond to concerns or complaints by people who used the service, their representative or by staff.
People and relatives we spoke with told us the service was well managed and made positive comments about the registered manager.
The service had a robust quality assurance system in place and records showed that identified problems were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Resident and relatives meetings took place so people had opportunities to feedback about the service and suggest improvements. This showed the registered provider actively sought out the views of people to continuously improve the service.
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 reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.
We saw evidence that regular checks were undertaken of the premises and equipment. We saw any actions identified to improve the safety of the service were completed.