CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moresby Parks
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing and facilitating visits in line with current guidance. The provider also described measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 safety measures.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 13 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected the home.
The home had six residents and could support up to six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found comprehensive COVID-19 procedures, regular testing, visitor screening, enough protective equipment and effective cleaning arrangements.
The home was also supporting contact with relatives and visits in the community when safe. The service was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The overall service was inspected but not rated, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care.
COVID-19 planning
The home had detailed procedures for managing COVID-19 risks, including when someone had a positive diagnosis.
“The home had comprehensive policies and procedures to manage any risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives, including through online visits when in-person visits were not possible.
“People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning
Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment correctly. There were cleaning schedules, hand sanitiser and supplies of protective equipment for staff and visitors.
“There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and any visitors to use.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing any current staffing pressures, and have they affected people's care?
- 02Are the regular COVID-19 testing and visitor screening arrangements described in the report still in place?
- 03How do you support visits and contact with relatives when someone cannot visit the home?
- 04Is protective equipment still readily available, and how is staff training in its use kept up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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, August 2019
The Eyrie was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with night staffing and recording systems still under review.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. One inspector met all six people living in the home and spoke with two of them. They observed care, checked the building, read care and medicines records, spoke with six staff, and reviewed training, staffing and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People appeared relaxed and told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood people's needs, supported their health and independence, and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with healthcare, meals, communication, activities and relationships. There was no use of restraint, seclusion or segregation. Inspectors also noted that night staffing arrangements were being considered as people's needs increased, and that systems for recording requests for support were still being developed.
Safety and safeguarding
People said they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risk plans covered health needs, communication, eating and drinking, and activities outside the home.
“The provider had good risk assessments and risk management plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed supporting people patiently and respectfully. People were helped to make choices and maintain privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect. Their needs and wishes were respected.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about individual personal, health and psychological needs. Plans were reviewed when people's needs or wishes changed.
“Care plans gave good guidance on the personal care, health care and psychological needs of the individual.” from the report
Choice and community life
People took part in shopping, cooking, housework, meals out, church, swimming, social clubs and other activities. Staff supported people to build skills and become more independent.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships and to go out into the community.” from the report
Least restrictive support
The home used positive behaviour support and reported no restraint, seclusion or segregation. Staff supported people to make decisions and used restrictions only where necessary and appropriately.
“The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way.” from the report
Night staffing under review
minorThe manager was considering changes to how staff were deployed at night because people's needs had increased. Families should check what staffing arrangements are now in place.
“The registered manager was considering changes to the way staff were deployed by night because of increased levels of needs.” from the report
Recording requests for support
needs fixingThe manager and deputy were still developing a system to record requests for support promptly. This was intended to help identify any needs that had not been met.
“The registered manager and the deputy manager were developing systems to ensure any requests for support were recorded in a timely fashion so they could reference any unmet needs.” from the report
- 01How have night staffing arrangements changed since inspectors said people's needs were increasing?
- 02How are requests for support now recorded, checked and followed up if a need has not been met?
- 03How will you support my relative to communicate choices if they do not express themselves verbally?
- 04What activities and community outings would be available for my relative, and how would their interests shape the care plan?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, behaviour or wishes change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations of care, all six care files, medicines records, staffing and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 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.
Every inspection of Moresby Parks
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
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 30 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.