CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moorhead Rest Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements, with one visitor-screening gap corrected during the visit.
This was a targeted inspection on 16 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. The visit was announced.
Inspectors found good practice in the areas they checked. Staff and visitors used protective equipment correctly. The home had testing, cleaning, hand hygiene, visiting and isolation arrangements in place. Staff had received COVID-19 training and there were enough staff to maintain safeguards.
One small gap was found in the visitor entry checks. Visiting health care professionals had not been asked the same health and safety questions as most other visitors. This was corrected during the inspection. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
Staff, managers and visitors were using PPE correctly, with clear procedures for its use and disposal.
“We noted good practices in all of the areas we considered including the use of and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Infection prevention
The home had regular testing, hand sanitiser, PPE, cleaning and signs reminding people about infection-control measures.
“There were comprehensive measures to prevent any infections spreading within the home.” from the report
Emergency planning
The home had plans to isolate people and could use separate staff if there was widespread infection.
“We noted an area of the home could be segregated in the event of widespread infection so as to assist with appropriate isolation of people.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Visiting arrangements were explained to families, and people were supported to contact relatives through social media and video messaging.
“People were also supported in contacting their friends and relatives by the use of social media and video messaging services.” from the report
Visitor screening
minorMost visitors completed a short health and safety questionnaire, but this was not initially done for visiting health care professionals. Inspectors said this was corrected during the visit.
“Most visitors had to answer a short health and safety questionnaire but this was not raised with visiting health care professionals.” from the report
- 01What infection-control and visiting arrangements are in place now?
- 02How often are people living in the home and staff tested now?
- 03How would you manage an infection outbreak, including isolation and separate staffing?
- 04Do all visitors, including health care professionals, complete the same health and safety checks?
- 05Where can I see the home's ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe only; the other areas and an overall rating were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medicines-recording improvement identified.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 September 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a district nurse, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and relatives were positive about the care.
Inspectors found suitable staffing, staff training, safe medicines processes, personalised care plans, meaningful activities and regular checks on quality. They advised that the time given for some as-needed medicines should be recorded more clearly.
The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection. The report found no serious risks or concerns and did not identify any breaches of regulations.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills. Staff understood safeguarding and how to manage risks such as falls and sore skin.
“There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a gentle, respectful way. People were offered choices about their routines and care.
“Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, routines and support needs. Staff could describe how individuals preferred to be cared for.
“People's preferred routine was also recorded to show how they liked things to be done.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were supported to take part in regular activities and to stay connected with relatives and friends.
“People were supported on a regular basis to participate in meaningful activities.” from the report
Management and improvement
The manager used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor the home and identify improvements. Staff and families described the management as supportive and approachable.
“Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.” from the report
Recording as-needed medicines
needs fixingThe inspector advised the home to record the time when as-needed medicines, such as pain relief, were given. This was to reduce the risk of doses being given too close together.
“The inspector advised that the time of the 'as required' (PRN) medication such as pain relief, should be recorded to avoid the potential of someone having too many within the recommended timeframe.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the time that as-needed medicines, including pain relief, are given?
- 02How do you check that as-needed medicines are not given too close together?
- 03How will you record and review my relative's preferences, daily routine and changing care needs?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support them to take part?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care planning and decisions about treatment?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; the Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 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 Moorhead Rest Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
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
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.