CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Moorland Gardens Care 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures in the checked unit were safe and effective.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 November 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control in the 10-bed unit intended as a designated setting for people discharged from hospital with Covid-19.
Inspectors found good arrangements. Staff working in the unit were separate from staff in other areas. There were separate entry points and rooms for putting on and removing protective equipment. New admissions could enter safely without mixing with people and staff elsewhere in the home.
The unit had been redecorated, with new vinyl flooring. Bedrooms were free from clutter and had their own toilet and washing facilities. Inspectors were assured that the unit met good infection prevention and control guidelines.
The service was not given an overall quality rating in this inspection. The Safe question was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide ratings for the other areas of care.
Separate staff and access
Staff working in the designated unit were kept separate from staff in the other parts of the home. The unit also had its own entry and access point.
“Staff were selected to only work in this unit and they were not going to work in the other areas of the home.” from the report
Safe admissions
There were processes to admit new people without mixing them with people or staff in other parts of the home.
“There were safe processes in place to ensure new people who were being admitted into the scheme did so in a safe way, away from the people and staff in the other areas of the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean, suitable environment
The unit had been redecorated, had new flooring, and its bedrooms were clear of clutter with toilet and washing facilities.
“Bedrooms were clutter free and each bedroom had toilet and washing facilities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the same 10-bed unit still being used as a designated setting?
- 02Are staff still selected to work only in this unit and kept separate from staff in other areas?
- 03How are new admissions kept separate from people and staff in the other areas of the home?
- 04How are visitors, staff and residents tested, and how is protective equipment used?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control in the 10-bed designated unit only; the whole home and the other quality questions were not assessed or rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 2020 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 2020
Moorland Gardens Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some improvements still needed to records, activities and staffing at night.
This was the first CQC inspection since the home was registered with a new provider. Inspectors visited unannounced on 16, 20 and 28 January 2020. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Each of the five areas was also rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives generally said staff were kind, respectful and supportive.
Inspectors found safe medicine practices, suitable staff training, good access to healthcare and clean premises. They also found that care was personalised and that complaints were followed up.
There were some areas to improve. Some people felt there were too few staff at night and not enough activities. Daily records were not always personal enough, and end-of-life wishes were not yet recorded in everyone's care plans.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, caring and friendly. Inspectors also saw respectful interactions and support with dignity.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and friendly.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records were clear, and checks were used to identify errors quickly.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People could access GPs and other health services when needed. Staff acted promptly when a person became unwell.
“The local GPs visited the service when needed to see people.” from the report
People had choices
People were supported to choose when they got up, what they wore and how they spent their day. Staff aimed to support independence.
“People told us they made decisions and choices about how they lived their lives at the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and pleasant. Housekeeping staff cleaned all areas daily and infection control measures were in place.
“The service was clean and offered a pleasant environment for people to live in.” from the report
Staffing at night
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt there were not always enough staff at night. They said staff were busy and responses were slower, although call bells were answered.
“Some people and relatives said there were not always enough staff, particularly at night.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome people said they were sometimes bored because there were not enough activities or opportunities to follow their interests. The home was planning to develop this area.
“Some people told us they were sometimes bored because there were not enough activities and opportunities for them to pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Daily records lacked detail
minorDaily records did not always describe people's individual experiences and personalities. The manager was already supporting staff to improve them.
“People's daily records were not always detailed and lacked personalisation.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingNot all care plans recorded how people wanted to be supported at the end of their lives. The manager said this information would continue to be added.
“However, information needed to be included in everyone's care plans about how they wanted to be supported at the end of their lives.” from the report
Mealtime interaction
minorInspectors saw that staff did not talk much with people in dining rooms apart from when giving food or support. They said more conversation could have helped create a more social atmosphere.
“We spoke with the registered manager about staff needing to do more to create a social atmosphere during mealtimes.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty at night, and how quickly are call bells answered during those shifts?
- 02What activities are available for people who cannot join group activities, and what has changed since the inspection?
- 03How do you make sure daily records describe each person's experiences and personality, rather than only the care given?
- 04How do you record and review each person's wishes for end-of-life care?
- 05What do staff do during mealtimes to encourage conversation and reduce social isolation?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided; it was the first inspection since the service was registered with the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 2020 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 Moorland Gardens Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Luton
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. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.