CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moat House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safeguarding systems, safe medicines management and effective infection control. They also found that risks, accidents and incidents were assessed and reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, regular audits and action plans. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team and felt able to raise concerns.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and effective management, but asked the home to improve staff communication.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 August 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led after concerns about safeguarding incidents. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable safeguarding arrangements and safe medicines practice. Infection prevention measures were also effective. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the safeguarding concern.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Good. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection rather than checked during this visit. Inspectors recommended more training to improve some staff communication and interactions.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks were completed to assess staff suitability.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Management had responded to recent safeguarding incidents by improving awareness and communication.
“Following recent safeguarding incidents, the registered manager had worked with staff to raise awareness of safeguarding and promote an open and transparent culture for reporting concerns.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff handling medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Management and oversight
The home had a clear management structure and used audits to identify and address shortfalls. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive.
“A clear management structure was in place. The registered manager was supported by a care manager, senior care staff and heads of departments such as maintenance and housekeeping.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used infection control measures effectively, including safe use of protective equipment and an up-to-date policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Communication and warmth
needs fixingSome people and relatives described staff as occasionally sharp, and inspectors saw interactions that lacked warmth. The registered manager was asked to review staff training in communication and interactions.
“We observed occasions when some staff communications were attentive but lacked banter and warmth in their interactions.” from the report
Care risk information
needs fixingOne person's risk assessment did not include enough personalised information for mobility transfers. The manager corrected the care plan during the inspection.
“We found one person's risk assessment lacked personalised information around reassurance and additional information staff needed to be aware of during mobility transfers.” from the report
- 01What communication training has been provided since the inspection, and how do you check that staff speak warmly and respectfully?
- 02How do you respond if a resident or relative says a member of staff has been sharp or dismissive?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns now discussed and followed up through the daily senior staff meetings?
- 04How do you make sure risk assessments contain personalised information for mobility transfers?
- 05How are residents' and relatives' survey results now collated and used to make improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published on 14 April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Moat House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures were affecting people.
The home was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment safely, cleaning was thorough, testing was arranged, and people who tested positive were supported to isolate.
The home had enough protective equipment and followed updated COVID-19 risk assessments and guidance. Visits were taking place through essential care givers and a visiting pod, with testing and protective equipment required.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full quality rating for the home or a rated judgement across all five questions.
Infection control
The home used cleaning schedules, hand hygiene and protective equipment effectively. Inspectors found the premises very clean.
“The premises were very clean. Housekeepers followed robust cleaning schedules.” from the report
Managing the outbreak
The home had plans and risk assessments for COVID-19 and staff followed current guidance. People who tested positive were supported to isolate in their apartments.
“The service was experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19. Risks were well managed and staff acted in accordance with the latest government advice and guidance.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
There were sufficient stocks of protective equipment, including supplies outside rooms where people were isolating. Staff and people were supported to complete testing.
“We observed sufficient stocks of PPE and staff using PPE safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
People could receive visits from essential care givers in their apartments or in a visiting pod. Visitors were tested and used protective equipment.
“People were able to receive visits from essential care givers in their apartments or in a designated visiting pod.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the home currently experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak, and how are risks to residents being managed?
- 02Are there currently staffing pressures, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 03What testing and protective equipment rules apply to staff, residents and visitors now?
- 04How can essential care givers visit, and are visits still held in residents' apartments or a visiting pod?
- 05If a resident needs to isolate, how will the home reduce distress and maintain contact with family?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Moat House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.