CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Moorside Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and risks including fire, legionella and infection were monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture, effective quality checks and good engagement with people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some decorating planned.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 13 April 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, medicine records, recruitment and training records, and safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable safeguarding arrangements and checks on risks such as fire and legionella. People and relatives said they felt safe and praised the person-centred care.
The management team had systems to monitor care quality and acted on people's views. Some people thought the home needed decorating, but there was a plan for this. The overall rating stayed Good, as at the previous inspection in 2018.
Safe staffing
The home had enough staff, with recruitment checks completed. Staff said they had time to provide individual support and promote independence.
“People were supported by enough properly recruited staff because the provider followed their own robust recruitment procedures.” from the report
Person-centred culture
People were supported to make choices and maintain their skills and independence. Staff and relatives described a caring and committed culture.
“People received person-centred, high-quality care because the provider had embedded a positive culture in the home which was understood by staff.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used audits and other checks to monitor care, practice, premises and equipment.
“People received a consistently high-quality service because the management team ensured they had an effective oversight of the quality of care and care practice.” from the report
Listening to families
People and relatives could give feedback, attend meetings and raise concerns. The report says their views were responded to and relatives were kept informed.
“Relatives of people living in the home, felt confident they were kept up to date with important events and were able to visit the home and attend social activities.” from the report
Decorating needed
minorSome people felt the home would benefit from decorating. The provider had a plan to address this, so ask what work has been completed and what remains.
“Though some people felt the home would benefit from some decorating there was a plan in place to achieve this.” from the report
- 01What decorating work was planned, and what has been completed since the inspection?
- 02How is the home being managed while the new manager's CQC registration application is considered?
- 03How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs or the home's occupancy change?
- 04How can relatives give feedback, attend meetings and raise concerns?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were carried forward from the 2018 inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; ratings for the other key questions were carried forward from the last inspection in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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, October 2021
Targeted inspection; the previous Good rating remained, with safe staffing and infection controls found, but some recruitment checks had been missed.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 17 September 2021. It looked at concerns about staffing levels, recruitment processes and infection prevention and control. One inspector visited, observed care, spoke with people and staff, and checked records.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People appeared settled and staff interacted well with them. The home was clean and well maintained, and staff used personal protective equipment safely. COVID-19 testing, vaccination and visiting arrangements were also in place.
Some pre-employment checks had been missed. The provider completed these before the report was published. The inspection was not a full review, so the service was marked Inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating of Good remained unchanged.
Enough staff
Rotas showed there were enough staff, with sickness and leave covered by existing staff or bank workers. People said staff were available to support them.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind interactions
People appeared settled and inspectors saw good interactions between staff and people living in the home.
“People looked settled and we observed good interactions between staff and people living in the home.” from the report
Clean and safer environment
The areas inspected were clean, well maintained and free from unpleasant smells. Staff used protective equipment safely and cleaning arrangements were in place.
“All areas of the home that we looked at, were clean, well maintained and odour free.” from the report
Infection controls
The home had infection control procedures, staff training and regular COVID-19 testing. The report said people and staff had been vaccinated.
“Staff received IPC training and we observed management and staff using personal protective equipment effectively and safely.” from the report
Missed recruitment checks
minorSome pre-employment checks had not been completed when inspectors visited. The provider completed them before the report was published, and inspectors said no one was harmed.
“We noticed some shortfalls in the way staff had been recruited and that some pre-employment checks were missing.” from the report
Management changes
minorThere had been recent changes to the management team. A deputy manager who would also be clinical lead was still being recruited.
“There had been recent changes to the management team and a deputy manager who would also act as clinical lead was in the process of being employed.” from the report
- 01Have all pre-employment and other recruitment checks now been completed for every staff member?
- 02Has the deputy manager and clinical lead position been filled, and how is management cover arranged meanwhile?
- 03How are staffing levels covered when permanent staff are off sick or on leave?
- 04How often are cleaning, PPE use and COVID-19 testing arrangements checked?
- 05What visiting arrangements are currently in place following the period when people had to isolate?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about staffing, recruitment and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole service or change the previous Good ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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 Moorside Hall
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 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
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.