CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moore Care (Registered) Limited, 4 Manchester Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some health, evacuation and environmental risks were not properly assessed. Medicines were not always managed safely, and people were not fully protected from infection risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report did not give a separate rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report did not give a separate rating for Caring. Inspectors did report that staff knew people well and treated them kindly and respectfully.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report did not give a separate rating for Responsive. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, access the community and be involved in planning their care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not consistently identify risks or ensure that improvements were made. Some audits were incomplete, and staff did not always follow the home's policies.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred support but concerns about safety checks, medicines, the environment and management oversight.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 November 2023. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed communal areas and checked care records, medicines records and management records.
The home had enough staff and people were supported to take part in activities and visit the community. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and involved people and their relatives in care planning.
However, some health risks, evacuation risks and environmental risks were not properly assessed. Medicines were not always managed safely, and parts of the home had mould, damaged furnishings or missing handwashing supplies. The home's checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous Good rating, published in December 2018. The provider must send CQC an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.
Enough staff
There were enough staff with the right skills, including for one-to-one support. People were able to take part in activities and visits when they wanted.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and were seen treating them kindly and respectfully. Relatives also described a positive atmosphere.
“Staff knew people well and were observed to treat people kindly and respectfully.” from the report
Community life
People were supported to take part in local activities, hobbies, events and projects. The home had good links with the local community.
“The service had good links with the local community, and people got involved with various projects and events.” from the report
Involvement in decisions
People and those important to them were involved in care planning and in decisions about changes to the home.
“People, and those important to them, worked with managers and staff to develop and improve the service.” from the report
Unassessed safety risks
seriousSome health conditions did not have suitable risk assessments or care plans. Evacuation plans did not include all the information needed to support people safely in an emergency.
“People's health related risks were not always assessed to provide guidance for staff to support people safely.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousSome medicines were overstocked and opening dates were missing. Instructions for some medicines used when people were distressed did not give staff enough detail.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Environment and infection control
seriousInspectors found mould, damaged furniture and fittings, and missing soap and hand-drying facilities in a communal bathroom. These issues could increase risks to health and safety.
“People were not fully protected from the risk of infection.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits had not identified important problems, and action plans were not always in place. This meant managers did not have effective oversight of quality and safety.
“The provider's system did not always effectively monitor the quality of care provided to drive improvements.” from the report
Inconsistent behaviour support
needs fixingNot everyone had a positive behavioural support plan using the same evidence-based approach. CQC recommended that the provider use a consistent model.
“However not everyone had a PBS plan in place, but a behaviour support plan which did not always follow the same principles of PBS.” from the report
- 01Have all people's health risks, including epilepsy, pica and phenylketonuria, now been assessed and added to their care plans?
- 02How are medicines now checked for overstocking, opening dates, recording errors and clear instructions for medicines used when someone is distressed?
- 03Has the refurbishment been completed, including replacing damaged furniture, dealing with mould and making sure bathrooms have soap and hand-drying facilities?
- 04How do managers now check that audits identify risks and that action plans are completed?
- 05Does every person who needs one have a positive behavioural support plan based on the same evidence-based approach?
This inspection covered the overall service but the report gave ratings only for Safe and Well-led; it looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 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, December 2018
Moore Care (Registered) Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 and 16 October 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines information and quality checks.
The home supported 12 people with learning disabilities and associated conditions. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and staff understood people's needs.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent, maintain relationships and take part in work, education and activities. Care plans were personalised and reviewed. All five areas were rated Good, which means the inspectors found the service met the required standards at that inspection.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, take responsible risks and live as independently as they wished.
“The service was organised to enable people to take responsibility for their life and how they spent their time.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw that privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and the staff promoted their independence.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in work, voluntary activities, art, leisure and community activities that interested them.
“The activities included spending time with family and friends, completing voluntary work, walking dogs and watching tribute bands.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included information about people's individual needs and were reviewed with their involvement.
“People had individual care plans that were personalised and included guidance and information staff needed to enable them to provide individualised care and support.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used checks and audits to monitor the service and acted when they found areas needing improvement.
“Where concerns with quality were identified, action was taken to improve quality and the action plan and improvements were monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's care plan and involve them in decisions about their support?
- 02How do you make sure staffing is sufficient when people want to go out or take part in activities?
- 03How will you support my relative to understand risks and make their own choices?
- 04How do you support people with specific communication needs to express concerns or make complaints?
- 05How are medicines, incidents and changes in people's health monitored and reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas of quality; the overall rating remained Good, as it had at the previous inspection in May 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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 Moore Care (Registered) Limited, 4 Manchester Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Moore Care (Registered) Limited, 4 Manchester Road →
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Moore Care (Registered) Limited, 4 Manchester Road →
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.