CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Morewood Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated, and there were enough staff. Medicines, infection control and accident records were also checked and found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and competency checks, and people received support with food, healthcare and daily living skills. Mental capacity assessments and legal authorisations were in place where people were deprived of their liberty.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, had privacy and were supported to maintain important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, interests and aspirations and were reviewed monthly or when needs changed. People were supported to take part in activities and could access information, including complaints information, in suitable formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was approachable and understood their regulatory responsibilities. Quality checks, staff meetings, feedback and action plans were used to monitor and improve the home.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Morewood Centre is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 20 May 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and the registered manager. They observed care, reviewed care records and checked medicines, staffing, training, safeguarding and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and encouraged to develop independence. Staff knew people well and supported their health, activities, relationships and dietary needs.
The previous inspection, published in May 2018, rated the home Requires Improvement. This inspection found improvements in safeguarding and in how decisions and restrictions were managed. No breaches of regulations were reported.
Protection from harm
Inspectors found that safeguarding processes had improved. Staff understood what to do if they suspected abuse or harm, and action was taken to protect people.
“Improvements had been made to ensure people were protected from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences, communication styles and life histories. People were supported with privacy, dignity and choice.
“People were treated with kindness by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were encouraged to learn practical skills, choose activities and travel or stay away from the home where this was safe.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Checks and improvement
The manager and provider carried out checks on areas such as medicines, care planning and staff training. Action plans were used when shortfalls were found.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the services provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific health, communication, behavioural and dietary needs?
- 02What activities and opportunities would my relative have to build independence and practical skills?
- 03If my relative needed restrictions on their liberty, how would you assess this and make sure it had the right legal authorisation?
- 04How would you make sure my relative's care plan stays up to date if their needs or wishes change?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise concerns, and how will the home keep them informed about the response?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the care home, including its premises and care, and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 2019 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, May 2018
Morewood Centre is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and decision-making needed further improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 27 March 2018. The inspector spoke with people using the home, staff and managers. They looked at care records, staff recruitment files, medicines and the systems used to check quality.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Effective were also Requires Improvement. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good.
Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely and that people received kind, personalised support. However, checks on a person's welfare when they were away from the home were not clear enough. Staff also needed a better understanding of when mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were required.
The previous inspection in March 2017 also rated the home Requires Improvement. The report says improvements had been made since then, including medicines management and notifications of significant events, but further work was still needed.
Safe medicines
The home had improved its medicines systems. Checks were completed when medicines were given and later in the day, so errors could be identified quickly.
“Improvements had been made to ensure safe medicine systems were operated and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience, kindness and respect. People's privacy, dignity and communication needs were taken seriously.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped shape their support plans and decided how they wanted to be supported. Staff recognised individual preferences and communication methods.
“People were involved in the review of their care and decided how they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Activities and independence
People chose activities such as cooking, outings, games and community work. Staff helped people develop skills for greater independence.
“People chose how to spend their time and were involved in a range of activities according to their interests.” from the report
Welfare checks when people are away
seriousOne person had not returned from a planned visit and staff were unsure when they would return. The care plan did not explain clearly what staff should do if they were worried or when the person should be considered missing.
“The support plan and risk assessment did not record the procedure staff should follow if they were concerned about their welfare and when they would be considered 'missing' or at risk.” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
needs fixingSome capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were made for people who appeared to have capacity. Some liberty restriction applications were also made without the required assessment showing that the person lacked capacity for the particular decision.
“This meant assessments and best interests decisions were being made for people who had capacity.” from the report
Quality checks did not find all problems
needs fixingThe home carried out quality checks, but they had not identified the concerns about welfare checks and decision-making before the inspection.
“Quality checks were being carried out although these were not always effective as they had not identified concerns with how welfare checks were being carried out and how decisions may be made for people.” from the report
Security around the home
needs fixingThe home was next to public common land and had no clear boundaries. The provider was considering fencing and a wider review of security arrangements.
“The property was adjacent to public common land and there were no clear boundaries.” from the report
- 01What exact procedure do staff follow if a person does not return from an agreed visit?
- 02How do you record and review a person's welfare when they are away from the home?
- 03How do you assess whether a person has capacity for a specific decision?
- 04When would you make a best-interest decision or apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard?
- 05What action has been taken about the lack of clear boundaries around the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the home was not supporting anyone with end of life care at the time, so that area was not reported on. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 Morewood Centre
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.