Archived: Manor House Nursing Home

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and care workers told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

People's relatives told us the service was safe. One said "my mother is getting the best care possible. She is totally safe". Another said "I have no issues with safety, I trust the staff completely".

Care workers had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and demonstrated a good knowledge of abuse, the types of abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse was happening.

People's care plans reflected their needs and we saw that appropriate risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of inappropriate care, treatment or support. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed.

The provider had appropriate recruitment and selection procedures in place. The provider sought references and conducted background checks before care workers started work. Care workers were appropriately trained to care for, and support people.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was aware of the recent Supreme Court judgement in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and was taking appropriate action. The service had one person subject to a DoLS . We saw that this person had been appropriately assessed and their best interests considered.

Is the service effective?

During our visit we saw that people were treated appropriately. Care workers were patient and caring and we observed positive interactions between people and care workers throughout our visit.

We saw that where people were highlighted as being at risk of losing weight the service took appropriate action to reduce this risk. Measures were put into place and we saw that a recent audit of people's weights showed that this risk had been significantly reduced.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with two relatives. Both we complementary about the service and told us they felt people were well cared for. We spoke with two relatives. We asked them about the home and if they felt people were well cared for. Both relatives were very complementary. One said "I think they are well cared for here. The carers are excellent and activities are good". Another said "my mother has been here a number of years. The staff are very kind and gentle. This place has had its ups and downs but it is definitely on the up at present".

During our SOFI observations we saw that people were cared for in a respectful and dignified manner. Care workers engaged people and showed genuine warmth and compassion when dealing with them. They offered people choices and respected the decisions people made.

We asked a nurse how they promoted respect and involvement amongst the care workers. They said "they are very good at this. I encourage them [care workers ] to be calm, patient and offer choices. I get them to speak quietly as people can easily get agitated. I make sure they are respectful at all times. I believe my staff treat them [people] with dignity". This showed us that people had their privacy, dignity and independence respected and were cared for appropriately.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home, were regularly reviewed and reflected in the care plans. We saw evidence that care workers recognised when a person's condition changed or their health had deteriorated and sought the help and advice of other professionals. For example, we saw that appropriate referrals to GPs, falls clinic and occupational therapists were made.

We saw that complaints were dealt with in line with the provider's policy and were resolved in a timely fashion. For example, one complaint we looked at concerned some missing clothing. We saw that the matter was investigated and an action plan to resolve the complaint was put in place. The missing clothing was found and the issue resolved.

Is the service well led?

There was a registered manager in post who was visible and available for people and staff to raise any concerns. During our inspection we looked at the quality assurance systems that were in place. The information reviewed demonstrated that the home had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

The provider held regular meetings with care staff, people who used the service and their relatives. Actions from these meetings were followed through to improve the service.

A full time activities co-ordinator was employed Monday to Friday and we saw a good range of activities available, particularly for people living with dementia, to help stimulate and engage them. Day trips out to the local community were also regularly scheduled along with attendance at religious services for a variety of denominations.

We spoke with five care workers who told us they liked working at the home. One said "it is so rewarding". Another said "this is the best job you can have, helping people". All the staff had been appropriately trained and some were taking further diploma courses in dementia care.