CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moriah House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found improved safety and kind care, but training and management checks were not yet complete.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 November 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records.
The home had improved since its last inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and was in Special Measures. Safety risks, staffing, safeguarding and infection control had improved. People were treated with dignity and respect, and relatives said communication and care had improved.
The home was still rated Requires Improvement overall. Training was not fully completed, and some management checks did not give enough detail to show that improvements would last. The ratings covered Safe, Caring and Well-led only.
Safer stairwells
The home installed gates on all open stairwells and put stronger risk assessments in place. This reduced the risk of falls for people living with dementia.
“The risk to people's safety had been assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described good relationships with staff. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity, involved in care decisions and supported to keep their independence.
“People were provided with dignified care, their privacy was respected, and they were encouraged to do as much for themselves as possible.” from the report
Improved staffing
Management had introduced a method for checking staffing levels. People said staffing had increased and they no longer had to wait for support.
“Management had implemented a systematic method to ensure there were enough staff on shift to meet people’s needs.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment correctly, testing people and staff, and managing visits and infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Training not finished
needs fixingMost staff had completed safeguarding training, but the wider training programme was not complete. The report says more time was needed to make sure every staff member had the required training.
“the training programme would need to be fully completed to ensure the risk of harm to people was mitigated.” from the report
Management audits lacked detail
needs fixingThe new audits identified some issues, but they did not always record the outcome or follow-up action. This made it harder to know whether improvements would continue.
“these needed to be more comprehensive.” from the report
Some records needed updating
needs fixingSome people did not have detailed emergency evacuation plans. These were updated during the inspection. A diabetic care risk assessment was also not detailed enough and was updated at the time.
“We found some people did not have detailed personal plans for evacuating the home in an emergency.” from the report
- 01What training is still outstanding, and by what dates will all staff complete it?
- 02How do your audits record the outcome of each review and any follow-up action?
- 03Has the manager completed the application to become registered, and how are residents being introduced to the manager's role?
- 04How do you check that every resident has a detailed emergency evacuation plan?
- 05How are diabetic care plans and other health risk assessments reviewed after they are updated?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led, including infection control; Effective and Responsive were not covered and their ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Moriah House Limited was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures after inspectors found serious safety, dignity and management failures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 15 June 2021. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas and management documents.
Inspectors found people were at risk from unsafe hot water, an open stairwell, poor infection control and gaps in staff training. Staffing was not planned systematically, and some people had to wait for help. Safeguarding investigations and learning from incidents were also not effective.
People were not always treated with dignity or involved in decisions about their care. Inspectors found problems with privacy, personal clothing, washing, communication and the way some staff spoke about people.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures, meaning CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months unless registration action is proposed.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were managed and given safely. People said they could get pain relief when needed.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home carried out appropriate pre-employment checks to assess whether potential staff were suitable.
“Appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to gain assurances about potential staff members suitability.” from the report
Unsafe risks
seriousPeople were exposed to risks including scalding from hot water and falling down an open stairwell. These risks were not properly assessed or dealt with.
“People's risks in relation to their health, care needs and environment were not being assessed, mitigated or managed effectively in order to keep people safe.” from the report
Staffing and training
seriousStaffing was not planned around people's needs, and staff had not been kept up to date in several important areas. People sometimes had to wait for support.
“People told us they sometimes had to wait for staff to support them.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found problems with isolation, social distancing and the safe use of protective equipment. Indoor visits had not been offered to relatives in line with their expectations of the guidance.
“Systems and processes in place placed people at increased risk of infection.” from the report
Dignity and privacy
seriousPeople were not always treated respectfully. Inspectors found concerns about washing, clothing, staff interactions and bedroom privacy.
“In the bedrooms the windows were exposed and the bedroom toilets did not have closable doors, this placed people's privacy and dignity at risk.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits, records and incident reviews were not reliable. Feedback from people and relatives was collected but concerns were not acted on or explained.
“There was no evidence of learning from incidents or taking on board recommendations from other agencies, such as the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove the risk of scalding from hot water outlets and the open stairwell?
- 02How do you now calculate staffing levels and make sure enough suitably trained staff are available on every shift?
- 03Which staff have completed safeguarding, dementia, fire safety, medicines, health and safety and infection control training?
- 04How are incidents, falls and safeguarding concerns now investigated and used to prevent them happening again?
- 05What has changed to improve people's privacy, personal care, clothing and involvement in decisions about their care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led, including infection control under Safe; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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 Moriah House Limited
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateCaring: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.