Moorhead Rest Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 2 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Moorhead Rest Home is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 27 adults living with dementia, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.At the time of our assessment there were 10 people living at this service. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led. We undertook site visits on 21 and 22 April 2026. We undertook this assessment to follow up on breaches in legal regulation found during our last assessment.

At our last assessment in June and July 2025, the provider was in breach of the legal regulations safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, staffing, safe recruitment, and the governance of the service. At this assessment the service was no longer in breach of legal regulations in relation to premises and equipment and staffing. However, we found continued breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, safe recruitment and the governance of the service.

Accidents and incidents were not being analysed to identify trends and themes to help reduce future risks. Where people had alarm sensors in their bedrooms, the alarm only sounded in the area it was plugged in, placing people at risk of falls. Not all care plans held up to date information on people’s mobility needs and risks. Staff were not always recruited safely, and all relevant checks and assurances were not in place around the use of agency staff. Issues with recruitment of staff had not been identified through governance processes. Medicines were not always being stored or administered in line with guidance and not all staff who were applying prescribed topical preperations, such as creams, had completed medicines training." People and relatives told us they felt safe using this service and appropriate DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) referrals were being made. There had been significant improvements made to the environment, and we found the service to be clean and tidy. There were plenty of staff who appeared to know people well.

Care plans were being reviewed regularly and staff attended handovers to discuss any changes. Guidance on people’s specialised diets were in place, and people were encouraged to live healthy lifestyles. Relatives felt they were kept informed of any changes and people’s consent was always sought. We did however see limited evidence of capacity being assessed in certain areas and tools for monitoring people’s outcomes were not always robust.

The registered manager completed spot checks to oversee staff practice, and we observed people being treated with kindness and dignity. Partner agencies told us staff always treated them with respect and people, and their relatives felt they were able to raise any issues. We saw evidence of meaningful activities taking place and people’s independence was promoted. Staff responded quickly to people’s needs and staff wellbeing was promoted.

People were included in all aspects of their care and relatives were involved in decision making. We observed staff knew people well and people were comfortable around the staff team. Referrals were being made to other services as required and the Accessible Information Standards were being followed. People’s confidential information was kept secure and there was a policy in place for handling complaints. The service was accessible for people, and people and staff praised the changes that had been made to the environment. The registered manager had policies in place to address barriers to equality and diversity, and people’s advanced care wishes were recorded as appropriate.

Some records were not readily available during our site visit. It was not clear what action had been taken when concerns were raised in staff feedback forms and staff raised concerns that these forms were not anonymised. Some concerns we found at this assessment were present at the last assessment meaning we could not be assured processes had been fully embedded. Audits did not recognize concerns we found during our assessment as they were not robust enough to identify concerns. Some records held out of date information, and not all policies were detailed enough to guide staff. Staff told us there was a good culture at this service and praised the improvements that had been made. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns should they need to and that they were treated fairly. it was clear the management team had worked hard to ensure improvements had been made.

This service has been in Special Measures since 29 November 2024. The provider demonstrated improvements had been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.