CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moorlands Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and infection control. Risks were assessed and care plans were detailed, but medicines were at risk of not being managed safely and some people waited for call bells.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe positive interactions and people and relatives mostly spoke positively about staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, improvement plans and regular meetings. Some actions were not always recorded as completed, but the registered manager had oversight of the service and worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found detailed care planning and kind support, but medicines were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 February 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, friends and staff. They checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files and the home's quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that risks were assessed properly, staffing was sufficient, safeguarding procedures were understood and infection control measures were followed.
There was still a medicines concern. Team leaders made many medicines and recording errors, although inspectors found no evidence of harm and the management team sought medical advice after errors. The home was asked to embed its newer process for challenging unsafe medicines practice.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in May 2019, with a breach of regulation. This inspection found enough improvement for the breach to end and the overall rating to change to Good. The other three key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Detailed risk planning
Inspectors found that risks were assessed when people arrived and updated when their needs changed. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and person-centred.
“People's risk assessments were detailed and were updated as and when people's needs changed.” from the report
Safeguarding
People and relatives said support was safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew what to do if they had concerns.
“The provider had a robust safeguarding policy and process which was accessible to staff.” from the report
Kind, familiar staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions, and staff knew people well despite many stays being short term. People and relatives mostly spoke positively about the staff team.
“Despite people having short-term stays, staff knew people well. We observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Joined-up health support
The home worked with its on-site health care team and other professionals. The feedback from that team was mostly positive.
“We have a really good relationship with them [staff]. They [staff] know the patients so well.” from the report
Medicines errors
seriousTeam leaders made a high number of medicines and recording errors. Inspectors found no evidence of harm, but the home needed to embed its process for challenging unsafe practice.
“People's medicines were at risk of not being safely managed. Team leaders made a high quantity of medicine and recording errors.” from the report
Call bell waits
needs fixingSome people said they sometimes waited for their call bell to be answered. The manager was reviewing response times and following up delays.
“People said they sometimes had to wait for their call bell to be answered.” from the report
Recording completed actions
minorActions from some quality checks were not always recorded as completed. The manager used an improvement plan to monitor them.
“Actions from identified shortfalls in various governance records were not always recorded as completed.” from the report
- 01What medicines errors have happened since the inspection, and what checks now make sure they are identified and prevented?
- 02How do you test that team leaders remain competent to administer and record medicines safely?
- 03What is the usual call bell response time now, and how do you investigate delays?
- 04How do you make sure actions from audits and quality checks are recorded as completed?
- 05Which ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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, April 2021
Moorlands Grange was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
Inspectors visited on 23 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection because of COVID-19. It looked at infection prevention and control arrangements, rather than the full range of care.
Inspectors found the home clean, hygienic and well maintained. Cleaning schedules covered areas that people touched often. They were also assured about visitor checks, testing, personal protective equipment, safe admissions and the use of isolation, zoning and grouping to reduce infection risks.
The home was marked “Inspected but not rated”. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for the five areas of care. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated.
Clean environment
The home was clean, hygienic and well maintained. Cleaning schedules identified areas needing extra cleaning.
“The service was clean, hygienic and well maintained.” from the report
Visitor safety
There were procedures for visiting, including testing and collecting appropriate visitor details, to help prevent infection spreading.
“There were robust procedures in place to support visiting and prevent the spread of COVID-19.” from the report
Managing infection risk
Isolation, zoning and grouping arrangements were in place to reduce cross infection. People also had one-to-one support and activities to help prevent social isolation.
“Isolation, zoning and cohorting had been effectively implemented at the service to reduce the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are high-touch areas currently identified and cleaned, and are the cleaning schedules still in use?
- 02What checks and testing are currently required for visitors, and how are visitor details recorded?
- 03How are isolation, zoning and cohorting used if there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 04How are people supported to keep in contact with others and avoid social isolation when infection controls are needed?
- 05How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the COVID-19 response; it did not provide full ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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.
Every inspection of Moorlands Grange
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.