Moss View

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last inspection this key question was rated requires improvement. This key question has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always routinely make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. There were numerous positive examples of people being provided with person centred care, however, some people’s records were not always personalised. For example, 1 person was being supported by staff to manage their blood sugar levels using a machine, however the person did not have this recorded in their care plan. This was amended at the time of our inspection. Other clinical care plans such as catheter and PEG support were detailed, structured and kept people safe, however, they were not always specific to the person. On day 2 of our inspection, these had been amended and contained more person-centred details.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were well supported by staff from different cultures and backgrounds. People’s dependency tools which recorded levels of care needs and interventions reflected the staffing levels in the home. Additionally, if people required 1-1 support or support to attend an appointment, this was done in consultation with their relatives.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was information displayed around the home such as activities, menus, and the daily newsletter. This were available in different formats to help support people’s needs.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. For example, 2 family members told us they had raised some ideas for improvements for their relative. One comment included “[Person] only likes warm water. Sometimes they leave the beaker on the table and it goes cold. [Person] won’t drink it if it’s cold so [they] need support to drink it whilst it’s hot.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it, however the environment was not always adapted to meet people’s needs. For example, the dementia unit was not adequately geared up towards supporting people with dementia. On day 1 of inspection, we observed clocks displayed the incorrect time, which was confusing. Also, compared to the main unit, the lounge area was cluttered, and people did not have ensuite facilities in their rooms. We raised this feedback with the provider, and on day 2, they had made some improvement in the unit. They confirmed refurbishment plans were underway for the dementia unit, and evidenced their own audits had identified this.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. For example, 1 person told us how they sometimes felt staff treated them like they did not have capacity. They also described how their diverse need made it hard for them to do some basic tasks and this frustrated them. We raised this with the registered manager around exploring possible adaptations for the person. Another person’s relative told us their family member would like more culturally appropriate dishes. We did see this had begun to be explored, but not yet implemented fully. The person’s relative, however, told us they felt the staff looked after and respected their family member.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Each person had an end of life pathway in their care plan, which had been completed in consultation with them, if they were able, or under a best interest process with their families.