You are here

The Manor House Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 September 2016

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 and 22 August 2016. The Manor House Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation for 15 people who require personal care. The service is intended for older adults. All rooms at the service are single occupancy. There is a lounge, dining room and television room on the ground floor. There were 14 people using the service on the first day of our inspection. A 15th person was in hospital.

We last inspected the service in October 2013 and found they were compliant with the regulations inspected.

The provider’s live at the service. One of the provider’s is the Registered Manager at the service. Throughout the report we have referred to this provider as the registered manager. 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.

Everyone was positive about the registered manager and provider and felt they were approachable

and caring. They were both very visible at the service and were caring and supportive to staff as they felt this was then the culture in which staff cared for people at the service. They both demonstrated the principles of care as recorded on their website. ‘We aim to exhibit a high professional standard of care at all times and to act in such a manner as to justify trust and confidence.’

There were sufficient and suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The staff undertook additional shifts when necessary to ensure staffing levels were maintained and there was flexibility.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions made in line with the MCA.

People were supported by staff who had the required recruitment checks in place. However improvements were put into place during the inspection to have a more robust system to ensure all checks had been carried out.

Staff had received a full induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet. People, visitors and staff were very positive about the food at the service.

People said staff treated them with dignity and respect at all times in a caring and compassionate way. People received their prescribed medicines on time and in a safe way.

Staff supported people to follow their interests and take part in social activities. Staff undertook activities at the home and additional staff were brought in for people to be able to access the local community.

Risk assessments were undertaken for people to ensure their health needs were identified. Care plans reflected people’s needs and gave staff clear guidance about how to support them safely. They were personalised and people had been involved in their development. People were involved in making decisions and planning their own care on a day to day basis. They were referred promptly to health care services when required and received on-going healthcare support.

The provider had a quality monitoring system at the service. The provider actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff. There was a complaints procedure in place and the registered manager was aware how to respond to concerns appropriately. However there had been no complaints made at the service in the last year.

The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 September 2016

The service was safe.

People said they felt safe and staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised.

People’s risks were managed well to ensure their safety.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. With improvements made at the inspection to demonstrate all information had been gathered.

People’s medicines were safely managed.

The premises and equipment were well managed to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received training and supervision which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people’s needs and to recognise changes in people’s health.

People’s health needs were managed well. They saw health and social care professionals when they needed to and staff followed their advice. Positive feedback was received from professionals about the service.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, which they enjoyed.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 September 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were friendly, caring and respectful.

Staff respected people’s privacy and supported their dignity.

Visitors were encouraged and always given a warm welcome.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 September 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People’s needs were assessed. Care plans were developed to meet people’s needs.

People had been involved in planning their care. Plans were in place for people to be involved in care plan reviews.

A range of activities were available and people were able to access the local community.

There were regular opportunities for people and people that matter to them to raise issues, concerns and compliments.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 September 2016

The service was well led.

Everyone spoke positively about communication at the service and how the provider and registered manager worked well with them.

People, relatives, health professionals and staffs views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service.

There were effective methods used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received.