Moorlands Nursing Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 27 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 26 May 2026.

The service is a nursing care home providing support to up to 37 older people living with frailty and dementia. At the time of our assessment, 32 people were in receipt of a regulated activity.

The service is not a specialist service for autistic people or people with a learning disability. However, some people supported by the service had a learning disability. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider was not meeting this guidance. The provider did not support people to access and integrate into their local community, or provide meaningful activities and engagement within the service in circumstances where community access was not possible.

The provider of the service had changed in December 2025. Our assessment was in response to concerns raised by relatives and visiting professionals about the quality and safety of care being delivered since the new provider took over the service.

There was a negative culture within the service, with some staff feeling reluctant to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. There were also ongoing allegations of senior management discriminating against certain staff members. These allegations were currently being investigated by the provider’s HR team and trade unions who were supporting staff who were no longer working at the service.

There was a lack of oversight and governance within the service, and audits that were carried out by the management team were ineffective in their use. The provider had also not made CQC aware of notifiable incidents such as unexplained bruising and unwitnessed falls that resulted in injury to the person. Feedback from people and relatives was not acted upon to improve the service.

Various health and social care professionals informed us of difficulties they had encountered when trying to communicate with the provider and fed back they felt the service had deteriorated since December 2025. Incidents had occurred where people’s decline in health had not been alerted to emergency services in a timely manner resulting in delayed treatment.

Staff did not always understand their responsibility to safeguard people from abuse. Risk assessments and care plans contained contradicting information, and staff did not know people and their interests, preferences and backgrounds well. There was a lack of engagement and activity provision available in the service, especially for those who were nursed in bed. We identified areas of the environment were not safe and needed refurbishment and did not maximise the experience for people living with dementia.

Whilst there was enough staff to meet people’s basic needs, there was no available time for staff to provide personalised care or engage fully with people in a meaningful way. Staff had not always completed training that was appropriate for their role, and any concerns raised by staff in supervisions and appraisals were not addressed by the provider. Areas of medicine management needed improving to meet national guidance and best practice.

People with specific nutritional needs were catered for. People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service and at regular intervals to determine if their needs had changed. People, relatives and healthcare professionals were complimentary of the registered manager. However, at the time of our assessment they were working their notice period after resigning from the service.