Moorfield Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Moorfield Care Home is situated in a residential area close to Bury town centre. The home is registered with CQC for up to 20 people and at the time of the inspection was providing care, support and accommodation to 20 people who required personal care without nursing.

Moorfield Care Home had been taken over by a new provider, Churchlake Care Limited, and this was the first inspection under the new provider.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Good Governance. This was because there were governance systems in place but these were not sufficiently robust to enable the provider to have good oversight.

Sufficient staff were in place to meet people’s care and support needs. However, there was no system in place to assess appropriate levels of staffing as people’s care needs changed.

The home was clean and tidy but not all actions from the previous infection control audit had been completed. This was addressed following inspection.

There were processes in place for the safe recruitment of staff and we spoke with the registered manager about ensuring records are accurately maintained in this area.

The registered manager had an overview of staff training. Staff were receiving relevant training, competency checks and supervision. However, some training needed refreshing as it had been some time since staff had completed it.

The registered manager was maintaining a record of accident and incidents and analysing this information to reduce the potential for reoccurrences.

People’s medicine was securely stored and people were safely supported to take any medicines they might need. This included medicines taken ‘as required’ for pain relief.

People could choose what they wanted to eat and the cook knew people, their preferences and nutritional needs well.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and could demonstrate their understanding of the procedure to follow so that people were kept safe.

People were supported by caring staff who knew them and their care needs well.

Care records reflected people’s current needs, interests and preferences.

People told us they would like to have more to do in relation to daily activities. We recommend the service review the activities on offer for people.

The service had a complaints procedure and a variety of ways for people and relatives to provide feedback on the service. People had confidence that the registered manager and deputy manager would address any concerns they raised.

People spoke positively about the registered manager and deputy manager. Staff told us they were happy coming to work and saw the home as a family.