Archived: Manson House

Manson House is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation for people aged 65 and older. At the time of our inspection 29 people were living in the service.

Manson House is owned by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were safe living in the service. Risks had been identified and people told us they felt safe and well looked after.

Staff were kind and caring and supported people to be as independent as possible.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Staff knew how to care for people. Staff used their skills and the resources and equipment provided so they risk of accidental harm or infections was reduced. People were supported to have the medicines they needed to remain well and as prescribed.

People were supported to eat and drink. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

The registered manager had clear oversight of the service and worked alongside staff. Staff were respectful of the register manager and told us they were approachable and supportive.

We found the service continued to meet the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (The date of the last report published was 17 August 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor this service in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated as Good.

The service has a 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.

People told us that they were very happy living at Manson House. Staff knew the people they people they supported and were clear about what they should do if they had any concerns about people’s welfare. Risks were identified and assessments set out the actions that staff should take to minimise the impact on individuals. Equipment was in a good state of repair and checks were undertaken on the building and services to make sure that they were working effectively and protected people.

People were supported by a stable staff team, many of whom had worked at the service for a number of years. Staff were available and responsive to people’s needs. Training was provided to ensure that they had the skills they needed to support people.

Meals were attractively presented and people spoke positively about the choice and quality of the food. Lunch was a relaxed social experience and staff supported those who needed help unobtrusively.

People were supported to access health care and the staff worked with a range of health professionals to promote people’s needs.

People had their care needs assessed and this included a social history and details of their care preferences.

Care was person centred and tailored to people’s individual needs. People spoke about the caring atmosphere and the commitment and dedication of staff. Staff went the extra mile to improve people’s quality of life. There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with respect and people were able to live their lives as they wished. People’s independence was promoted and they were supported to maintain their skills and interests. There was a varied and interesting activity programme.

The manager was assessable and approachable and staff were well supported. The manager was clear as to their responsibilities and was supported by a management team. There was effective systems in place to ensure that information about people’s needs was handed over and acted upon.

Morale was high among the staff and they were clear about the vision and values of the service. The provider regularly visited the service to check on the quality of care and there were systems in place to audit the care provided and to drive improvement.

We saw the service's care planning documentation. These records showed that people's needs were thoroughly assessed, with plans in place to meet the individual needs of the person concerned. Plans were regularly reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.

The service ensured that all staff received training and guidance in safeguarding vulnerable adults. The staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate their knowledge in this area.

The service has a clear staff recruitment policy which ensures that all appropriate checks were completed in respect of anyone seeking employment in the service.

We saw evidence of regular communication between the service and both people who used the service and relatives of people who used the service. With actions taken by management when people identified areas of improvement, or where change in the service was suggested.