CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Moors Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
The Moors Care Centre was rated Requires Improvement because care records and quality checks did not always keep people safe, although care was kind and responsive.
This was the first inspection since the current provider registered. Inspectors visited on 22 and 26 November 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was clean and well maintained. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staff knew people well, but care plans and risk assessments did not always give enough clear information. This could increase the risk of harm, especially when staff were new or did not know someone well.
Inspectors found good standards in effective, caring and responsive care. Staff were trained, people had choices, meals and activities were provided, and relatives felt welcomed. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Well-led also Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring and supportive. Inspectors observed kind interactions and found that staff understood people's preferences.
“Observations of interactions were caring, and staff knew people well.” from the report
Good activities and relationships
Activities were varied and based on people's interests. People were supported to stay in touch with family and take part in local community activities.
“Activities were based on people's interests and helped to maintain and develop functional skills, independence and well-being.” from the report
Safe medicines administration
Trained staff administered medicines safely and completed the required electronic records. Guidance was available for medicines taken when needed.
“Medicines were managed safely by trained staff; assessments were completed on a regular basis to ensure staff remained competent to safely administer medicines.” from the report
Good staff recruitment and training
The home carried out recruitment checks and provided induction and ongoing training. Staff said they felt supported.
“Staff had received a robust induction and on-going training to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they supported.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked well with health and social care professionals to respond to changes in people's needs and provide timely support.
“The home had a good working relationship with other professionals such as district nurses and the GP.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome known risks did not have a suitable risk assessment or clear guidance. Care plans did not always explain how staff should support people safely.
“However, risk assessments and care plans were not always in place when there was a known risk.” from the report
Poor care record quality
seriousThe new electronic records were difficult for staff to use and contained gaps and contradictions. This increased the risk that care would not be provided as each person needed.
“The provider failed to ensure records were accurate, complete and contemporaneous.” from the report
Audits did not find problems
needs fixingThe home's checks did not identify the record and safeguarding issues found by inspectors. There was little evidence of how the manager was escalating and fixing the electronic records problem.
“Care plan and safeguarding audits were in place however these had not identified the issues picked up on the inspection.” from the report
Creams not always stored securely
needs fixingSome prescribed creams were kept in people's bathrooms without suitable risk assessments. Inspectors recommended that storage arrangements be reviewed.
“Medicines such as prescribed creams were not always stored securely.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments lacked enough detail. Records for one person's covert medication did not show that best practice and the home's policy had been followed.
“Mental capacity assessments had been completed for individual decisions; however, these were not always recorded in enough detail.” from the report
- 01What has been changed in the electronic care record system since the inspection, and how do you check that records are now complete and consistent?
- 02How will staff, including new and agency staff, find clear guidance about my relative's risks, diabetes or dementia-related needs?
- 03How are safeguarding incidents and patterns now recorded, reviewed and acted on?
- 04How are prescribed creams and ointments stored securely, and are individual risk assessments in place?
- 05How do you record best-interest decisions and covert medication in line with your policy?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
Every inspection of The Moors Care Centre
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 2019.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.