CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moor House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines were generally stored and given safely, risks were assessed, staff understood safeguarding, and infection control arrangements were considered suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and leadership were inconsistent because audits did not always identify medicines record-keeping problems. Other audits, staff support and communication with people and relatives were in place.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home’s leadership and medicines checks required improvement.
Inspectors visited on three days without announcing the visits in advance. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety. People and relatives said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff during the inspection, appropriate infection control and support for people to access healthcare.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Medicines records were not always completed properly, and checks did not always find these gaps. The provider acted straight away, but inspectors said more time was needed to make the improved systems consistent. The overall Good rating included ratings from the previous inspection because this was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at Moor House Residential Care Home.” from the report
Risks were assessed
Staff had guidance about risks such as falls, dehydration and pressure areas. Further support, including professional referrals and sensors, was put in place when needed.
“Records showed that people's risks had been assessed and there were instructions for staff to follow.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff ask permission before carrying out tasks and offer people choices. People and relatives also described staff as kind and caring.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a respectful way. Staff asked people for permission before commencing a task and people were offered a choice.” from the report
Staff knew their responsibilities
Staff received safeguarding and whistleblowing training and knew how to raise concerns. Recruitment checks were completed before people started work.
“Staff had undertaken training for safeguarding and whistleblowing (reporting concerns) and understood their responsibilities in relation to this.” from the report
Healthcare support
People could access healthcare professionals when needed. Records showed that professionals and the local authority were involved in people’s care.
“Care records evidenced that healthcare professionals and the local authority had been involved in people's care to achieve positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Medicines records were incomplete
needs fixingSeveral topical medicines records were missing administration signatures. New monthly medicine deliveries were not always checked by a second member of staff.
“We noted several gaps in administration in the topical medication administration records (those applied to the skin).” from the report
Audits did not always find problems
needs fixingThe home’s checks had identified some shortfalls but had not always found missing signatures or other record-keeping issues. Inspectors said more time was needed to embed the new systems.
“Audits had identified some of the shortfalls we found but they did not always identify the missing topical medicines record signatures.” from the report
Some delays in getting help
minorSome people and relatives said they had sometimes waited for staff. The provider had recognised this and increased the number of care staff.
“People told us they had experienced occasions when they had to wait for staff to attend to their needs.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that topical medicines administration records are completed every time?
- 02Are new monthly medicine deliveries now checked by a second member of staff, and how is this recorded?
- 03What evidence can you show that the new medicines audit system is working consistently?
- 04Has the extra care staff member reduced waiting times when people use the call system?
- 05How will you monitor whether the home’s well-led rating has improved?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 2023 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, June 2022
Moor House Residential Care Home was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care.
This was the first full inspection of the home since it registered in 2019. It was unannounced and took place over 27 April and 06 May 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and quality records.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and that there were enough staff. Medicines were given and stored safely. Staff understood people's risks, followed infection control procedures and had suitable training. The home also had fire safety checks and emergency plans.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Their care records were personalised, and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities, communication and end-of-life wishes. Inspectors found that people were involved in decisions and that staff respected their privacy, dignity and independence.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service was meeting the relevant requirements and that people's outcomes and experiences were consistently good at the time of the inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe living in the service and with staff.” from the report
Enough staff
People and relatives said staff were available when needed. Inspectors saw staff respond promptly and found staffing was adjusted to people's needs.
“People and their relatives told us there were sufficient staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“We observed staff interacting in a kind and respectful way with people.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care records reflected people's needs and preferences. People were offered group and one-to-one activities, with their choices respected.
“People and their relatives told us they were happy with the number and types of activities on offer” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable. The home used audits, feedback and action plans to monitor care.
“There was a clear structure of governance in place for staff to follow and staff knew what their responsibilities were.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific care needs, including any dementia, mobility, communication or medical needs?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change?
- 03How would my relative be offered activities or one-to-one support if they preferred to stay in their room?
- 04How would you involve our family in care planning, healthcare decisions and end-of-life wishes?
- 05How are complaints, accidents and other incidents recorded, reviewed and used to improve care?
This was the first full inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions; an earlier targeted infection prevention and control inspection did not provide a rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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 Moor House Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Moor House Residential Care Home →
- June 2022GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Moor House Residential Care Home →
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2019.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.