Manor Park Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had erected a summer house in the grounds of the service to enable visitors to meet their relatives in private. Visitors entered the building by a separate entrance and completed the required checks before meeting their relatives. A plastic screen was in place in the summer house, which helped maintain social distancing, and prevented relatives’ friends and other visitors from spreading infection.

Staff had arranged for people to speak to their relatives and friends by telephone and video calls.

The provider had identified bedrooms which could be used for isolating people displaying covid-19 symptoms. People newly admitted to the service had to have a negative covid-19 test, and were also tested on arrival and isolated to prevent the risk of spreading infection.

The provider had ensured staff had received a recommended level of IPC training. Additional training, support and guidance had been provided by the registered manager. The manager completes regular checks to ensure that staff complied with the current guidance on the wearing of personal protective equipment.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Staff were kind and caring and there were sufficient numbers to keep people safe and to meet their care needs.

¿ People were supported by staff who were motivated, enjoyed their job and felt well supported through supervision and training.

¿ Care plans were up to date and detailed exactly what care and support people wanted and needed.

¿ Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified.

¿ People felt safe at the home and appropriate referrals were being made to the safeguarding team when necessary.

¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

¿ Medicines were being administered safely and people’s health and dietary needs were met.

¿ Activities and outings were arranged to keep people occupied.

¿The home was clean and tidy.

¿ There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.

¿ The registered manager provided staff with leadership and was approachable. Audits and checks continued to be used to drive improvements to the service people received.

¿People’s feedback was used to make changes to the service, for example, to the menus and activities.

¿ We have made a recommendation about improving the audits of the environment and monies held on behalf of people using the service.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 13 October 2016). The overall rating has remained the same following this inspection

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The service provides accommodation and support for up to twenty two people who have complex mental health needs. There were eighteen people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The home is located close to Keighley Town centre and within easy walking distance of the local park and other facilities in the area.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 saw records relating to people’s care and support were regularly updated and staff were provided with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure their safety and welfare. People were cared for by staff that had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks were completed. There were enough staff available to support people.

We found staff received appropriate levels of training and supervision to carry out their roles effectively and in people’s best interest.

We saw staff were kind and caring toward the people they supported and people were able to participate in social and leisure activities both within the home and the wider community. However, we found more could be done to provide people with a wider range of social, leisure and recreational activities.

We saw the registered manager and staff worked well with other community based professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met and people had access to the full range of NHS services. This included GPs, hospital consultants, community health nurses, opticians, chiropodists and dentists.

We saw medicines were administered by competent and trained staff and people received their medicines as prescribed and in a timely manner. Minor shortfalls in the system were addressed by the registered manager on the day of inspection.

We found the service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own.

We saw the complaints policy was available to everyone who used the service. The policy detailed the arrangements for raising complaints, responding to complaints and the expected timescales within which a response would be received.

We found there were quality assurance monitoring systems in place which were designed to identify any shortfalls in the service and non-compliance with current legislation. We found the systems were robust which helped to ensure the service was managed effectively.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

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

Is the service safe-

We inspected the staff rotas which showed there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs throughout the day and night.

Each person's care file had risk assessments which covered areas of potential risk such as pressure ulcers, falls and nutrition. When people were identified as being at risk, their plans showed the actions required to manage these risks.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge and awareness of their responsibilities for infection prevention and control and there was evidence staff had received relevant training.

We spoke with six people who used the service and they told us they were pleased with the standard of care and facilities provided by the service. One person said “"I enjoy living at Manor Park, the staff are friendly and the food is good."

.

The manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although no DoLS applications had been made, the manager was able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Effective -

People had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. We saw wherever possible people had been involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan. This meant that people were sure that their individual care needs and wishes were known and planned for and that they had the equipment they needed to meet their individual needs.

The home had a good working relationship with other healthcare professionals and followed their guidance and advice. The input of other healthcare professionals involved in people's care and treatment was clearly recorded in their care plan. We spoke with one healthcare professional during the inspection who told us they had no concerns about the care people received.

We saw all staff completed a comprehensive induction programme which took into account recognised standards within the care sector and was relevant to their workplace and their roles. In addition, we saw that following induction training all new members of staff shadowed experienced staff until the manager was confident they were able to carry out their roles effectively and unsupervised.

Caring –

People who used the service told us they were very happy with the care and facilities provided at Manor Park. One person said, “I am very pleased with the care I receive, everyone is friendly and kind." Another person told us, “I have no complaints at all about the care and support provided, we are all well looked after.”

We found the staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs and were able to explain how individuals preferred their care and support to be delivered. They felt confident the service provided to people who lived at the home was good and they encouraged them to remain as independence as possible within a risk management framework.

When we looked around the home we saw people’s bedrooms had been personalised and contained personal items such as family photographs, pictures and small items of furniture. We found the atmosphere within the home was warm and friendly and we saw staff approached individual people in a way which showed they knew the person well and knew how best to assist them.

People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the care and support they received at the home and staff respected their right to privacy and dignity.

Responsive –

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their care plan. Care records contained good information about how care and support should be delivered

People and their families were involved in discussions about their care and the risk factors associated with this. Individual choices and decisions were documented in the care plans and reviewed on a regular basis.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and were confident if they made a complaint it would be investigated thoroughly and action taken if appropriate. There was evidence that learning from incidents/investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

Well led –

We saw there was a quality assurance monitoring system in place that was designed to continually monitor and identify shortfalls in the service and any non-compliance with the essential standards of quality and safety.

We saw as part of the quality assurance monitoring process the service sent out annual survey questionnaires to people who used the service and/or their relatives to seek their views and opinions of the care and support they received. In addition, we found the service also sent out survey questionnaires to staff and other healthcare professionals. This gave them opportunity to air their views and opinions of the service and measured how well they thought the service was managed. This showed us the provider had appropriate systems in place to obtain the feedback of people who used and were employed by the service.

The staff we spoke with confirmed they were well supported by the manager and said they could contact them at any time if they had concerns. They also told us communication between management and staff was very good. This ensured the needs of people who used the service were met in line with their agreed support plan.

We spoke with two visitors and they told us they were pleased with the standard of care provided by the service. One person told us their relatives had lived at the home for a number of years and they had always been satisfied with the care provided and were always made to feel welcome when they visited. However, they did raise some concerns about the environment. They told us "The building is now looking very tired and in need of decorating."

We also found internally the building required refurbishing to make it a more pleasant and comfortable place for people to live. We discussed this with the manager who told us the provider was committed to improving the environment. They told us it was anticipated that work will start in the near future and would be completed within the current financial year.

We spoke with one healthcare professional who told us they had no concerns about the care, support and treatment people received and that always followed their advice and guidance.