CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Lodge - Moorville Residential
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, although one as-needed medicines protocol was missing and the storage of hazardous substances needed to be improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training and support. Inspectors noted that oral-care training had not been completed and some health appointment and mental-capacity records needed updating.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- People were treated with exceptional kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, develop skills, maintain relationships and pursue their goals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, goals and preferences. People were supported with activities, work or voluntary opportunities, relationships and communication in ways suited to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, welcoming culture and regular quality checks. However, those checks had not identified missing information in one person's care plan.
What inspectors found, October 2019
The Lodge - Moorville Residential was rated Good overall, with Outstanding care, but inspectors found some records and training needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors on 6 September 2019. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks. They also observed daily life, checked the building and spoke with staff and relatives. Some residents could not be spoken with meaningfully.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Caring. Inspectors found people were treated with warmth, dignity and respect, and were supported to make choices, build skills and become more independent.
The home was clean, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Inspectors also found some gaps, including incorrect or missing care-record information, one missing medicines protocol, and staff who had not yet completed oral-care training. The previous overall rating was Good, published in March 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found a strong person-centred culture. Staff treated people with compassion and respected their privacy, dignity and individuality.
“People were truly respected, valued as individuals and empowered as partners in their care.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, learn practical skills and work towards personal goals. This included cooking, shopping, voluntary work and leisure activities.
“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
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's care and support needs were met.” from the report
Positive relationships with families
Relatives described the care positively and said they were kept informed. The home supported contact with family and friends.
“Relatives told us their family members received high quality person-centred care and staff were exceptionally caring.” from the report
Care records were not always complete
needs fixingOne care plan referred to the wrong risk assessment. Some plans lacked health appointment trackers, and one mental-capacity assessment had not been reviewed for over a year.
“We recommend the provider considers reviewing the checks completed on people's records to ensure they are accurate and complete.” from the report
Hazardous substances
needs fixingInspectors said the storage of cleaning substances needed to be more secure because some people used the laundry room to enter or leave the building. The manager said the room would be locked until a new cupboard was obtained.
“We saw the storage of 'Control of Substances Hazardous to Health' (COSHH) substances needed to be more robust” from the report
Training and medicines paperwork
needs fixingStaff had not completed mandatory oral-care training. One person's as-needed medicine did not have the required protocol.
“However, we noted that staff had not received mandatory training in oral care.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been checked and corrected so that risk assessments and other information are accurate and complete?
- 02Has the new secure storage cupboard for hazardous substances been installed, and is the laundry room still kept locked when needed?
- 03Have all staff completed oral-care training, and how is this training kept up to date?
- 04Are health appointment trackers now included in every relevant care plan, with dental treatment recorded clearly?
- 05How often are mental-capacity assessments reviewed, and has the assessment that was over a year old been updated?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the premises, with the five ratings assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor issue in medicine records.
This was the home’s first CQC inspection. It took place on 5 January 2017 with short notice. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed daily care and checked care, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found enough trained staff, personalised care plans, good support with meals and activities, and effective checks on the quality of care.
There was one minor issue. Dates were not always recorded when some medicines, such as creams, eye drops and bottles, were opened. Inspectors recommended that the home consider current guidance. They did not say this had caused harm.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicating warmly and respectfully. Staff knew people's interests, needs and preferred ways of communicating.
“Staff displayed genuine warmth and caring attitude to the people they were supporting.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's choices and preferences in detail. Staff used different approaches to meet individual communication and support needs.
“Each person had a support plan which was personalised and reflected in detail their personal choices and preferences regarding how they wished to live their daily lives.” from the report
Choice and community life
People chose meals, activities and outings. Inspectors saw support for shopping, bowling, baking and other community activities.
“We found a range of activities were provided, and these were based on people's individual interests.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had completed relevant training, including autism and epilepsy training. They also received supervision and checks of their competence.
“Each member of staff had a programme of training and was trained to care and support people who use the service.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home had regular audits, meetings and checks of accidents, incidents and care records. Actions were followed up to support improvement.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Medicine opening dates
minorOpening dates were not always recorded on certain medicines, including creams, lotions, eye drops and bottles. Inspectors recommended considering current NICE guidance.
“Dates of opening certain prescribed medicines were not always recorded.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the opening dates of creams, lotions, eye drops and bottles?
- 02How will you make sure people's personalised care plans remain up to date as their needs change?
- 03What activities and community outings would be available for my relative, based on their interests?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions about care and best interests?
- 05How can relatives raise a complaint, and how would the home record and respond to it?
This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC questions; inspectors spoke with three people, two relatives and five staff and reviewed selected care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 2017 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 The Lodge - Moorville Residential
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Lodge - Moorville Residential →
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Lodge - Moorville Residential →
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 March 2016.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 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.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.