CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moorlands Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks such as falls, choking, malnutrition and pressure areas were assessed and managed. Medicines were given by trained staff, and infection control standards were good.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. Staff had suitable training and worked well with healthcare professionals to support people's health, nutrition and hydration.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and staff supported independence and communication.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally personalised and activities were provided. However, some relatives reported problems with unplanned visits, and one relative wanted more stimulating activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and committed management, good quality checks and open communication with families. The home worked effectively with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but visiting arrangements led to a Requires Improvement rating for Responsive care.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 6 and 7 February 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew their needs. Staff managed risks, medicines, food, infection control and healthcare referrals well.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Some relatives said they had to arrange visits and were sometimes refused unplanned visits, although the home said visiting was unrestricted. The manager contacted relatives before the report was completed to explain the open visiting policy.
Safe risk management
Staff understood people's individual risks and took steps to keep them safe while supporting their independence.
“People were protected from avoidable harm and discrimination.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff give patient, compassionate support and involve people in decisions about their care.
“People experienced caring relationships where staff treated them with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.” from the report
Good staff continuity
The home did not use agency staff. People and relatives said regular staff knew them well and were not rushed.
“People, relatives and professionals consistently told us people experienced good continuity and consistency of care from regular staff, who knew them well.” from the report
Strong partnership working
The home worked closely with healthcare professionals and acted on their advice, including when people's health or end of life needs changed.
“Professionals consistently highlighted partnership working to be a strength of the service, regularly commenting on the registered manager and staff knowledge and ability to provide required updates and clinical information quickly.” from the report
Limited activity choice for some people
minorActivities were provided, including for people staying in their rooms. However, one relative felt that more stimulating activities should be available.
“However, one relative told us they thought more stimulating activities could be made available.” from the report
- 01Can relatives visit without making an appointment, and how will you make sure this open visiting policy is followed in practice?
- 02What activities would be suitable for my relative, including more stimulating activities if they want them?
- 03What improvements have been completed to make the building easier and safer for people living with dementia?
- 04How do you check that people's care plans and risk assessments stay up to date when their needs change?
- 05Has the missing as-required medicines protocol been added, and how do you check that all medicine records and protocols are complete?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous inspection in 2019 had rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting and effective measures to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home was following government guidance. Visitors used personal protective equipment and completed tests or health declarations. People and staff had COVID-19 risk assessments, testing was available, and the home had enough protective equipment.
Inspectors found the home clean, well maintained and free from unpleasant odours. Staff covered unexpected absences, and people received consistent care from staff who knew them well. Visiting was supported through visits, telephone calls, video calls and newsletters.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors found good arrangements for protective equipment, testing, cleaning, risk assessments and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and well maintained, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The care home was clean, well maintained and odour-free.” from the report
Staffing continuity
Managers covered unexpected absences and staff volunteered to help, so agency staff were not needed during the pressures described.
“This ensured that people had experienced good continuity and consistency of care during the pandemic, from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Family contact
The home supported essential care givers and family visits, along with telephone calls, video calls and newsletters.
“Other methods of maintaining contact between people and their families were being effectively supported.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention, testing and protective equipment arrangements are in place now?
- 02How would you cover unexpected staff absence, and would agency staff be used?
- 03How can family members visit, including if someone needs extra support because of dementia or another vulnerability?
- 04How would you keep a resident in contact with family if an in-person visit was not possible?
- 05When was the home last given a full inspection and ratings for all five areas of care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 2022 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 Rest Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Reading
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 £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.