CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Moor Park House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found medicines, risk records and quality checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 25 November and 07 December 2020. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was not always safe. Medicines records and instructions were incomplete in some areas. Records about risks and accidents did not always show what had been done to keep people safe or prevent repeat incidents.
The home was also not well-led. Audits did not consistently find or follow up problems with records and risk management. The provider was open to feedback and took prompt action after the inspection.
The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection in July 2018 to Requires Improvement. This inspection only rated Safe and Well-led. The other question ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Staff understood people's risks
Staff could explain the risks people faced and how to reduce them. This helped reduce the risk of harm despite gaps in the written records.
“Staff demonstrated they were aware of the different risks people were vulnerable to which reduced the risk of harm.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home completed checks before employing new staff. Inspectors saw that staff responded to calls for help and met people's needs in line with care plans.
“The registered provider made sure there were enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way and in line with their care plan.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors found good relationships between management, staff, residents and relatives. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“Good relationships had been developed between management, staff and people using the service and their family members.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including PPE, testing and admissions.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Medicines records and procedures
seriousMedicines records were not managed consistently. Some instructions, cream charts and records of medicines carried forward were missing or not used, making safe administration difficult to check.
“Quantities of medicines carried forward to the next month's records were not recorded on all floors, making it difficult or impossible to audit the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Lessons from incidents
seriousThe home had not effectively shown what it learned from accidents and incidents. Records were not always used or completed, so inspectors could not be assured that repeat incidents would be prevented.
“Systems and processes were not effective to evidence that lessons had been learned to prevent similar incidents occurring in future.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingRisks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were not consistently assessed or documented. Control measures were not always recorded.
“Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were not consistently assessed or planned for.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not reliably identify problems or track whether they had been fixed. Some care and management records were incomplete, inaccurate or out of date.
“The registered manager had not operated effectively systems to assess, monitor and improve the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines records and the instructions for 'when required' medicines and prescribed patches?
- 02How do you now record and review accidents and incidents, and how do you check that lessons have been acted on?
- 03Have all residents' risk assessments and control measures been reviewed and brought up to date?
- 04What does your current audit show about incomplete care records, and how do you confirm that problems have been fixed?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan requested by CQC?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted by concerns about medicines and documentation; the other ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2021 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements needed in incident records and consent assessments.
This was a comprehensive inspection. It was unannounced on 11 May 2018, followed by an announced visit on 16 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines and complaints records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, medicines were managed safely, and people generally felt safe and confident in the staff.
Inspectors found two areas needing improvement. There was no central record to look for patterns in accidents and incidents. Capacity and consent records were not always complete or consistent. The report says the home remained Good and found no serious risks or concerns.
People felt safe
Everyone inspectors spoke with said they felt safe with the staff supporting them. Risk assessments were in place to help manage individual risks.
“Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe with staff who supported them.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines, including controlled drugs, were obtained, stored, given and disposed of appropriately. Checks showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“Systems were in place that showed people's medicines were managed consistently and safely by staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback. Staff were observed protecting privacy, speaking respectfully and offering choices that supported independence.
“We saw staff speaking with people who lived at the home in a respectful and dignified manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, wishes and preferences. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Each person had a care plan which was tailored to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found a clear vision, a positive staff culture and management that welcomed feedback. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“There was a positive staff culture at the service.” from the report
Accident records
needs fixingAccident forms were completed, but there was no central record showing patterns, management oversight or documented follow-up actions. The home was asked to improve its audit trail and recording of lessons learned.
“There was no central record for accident and incidents to monitor for trends and patterns and to ensure the management had oversight of these.” from the report
Consent and capacity records
needs fixingSome people's capacity to consent had not been fully assessed, and records could conflict. In one example, a relative had signed consent without evidence of legal authority or a recorded best-interest process.
“We found people's capacity to consent to care had not always been fully assessed and information was at times conflicting.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorInspectors saw that the home used a lot of agency staff. Management said it was recruiting and requested consistent agency staff to support continuity of care.
“We saw there was a lot of agency staff being used at the home.” from the report
- 01What central system do you now use to record accidents and incidents, identify patterns and track lessons learned?
- 02How do you assess and record a person's capacity to consent to care?
- 03If a relative signs a consent form, what evidence do you require that they have legal authority to do so?
- 04How much agency staff are currently used, and how do you maintain continuity for people with complex needs?
- 05What activities and day trips are available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and communication needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with an unannounced visit on 11 May 2018 and a further announced visit on 16 May 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2018 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 Park House Limited
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.