Manor Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Feedback from people and relatives was positive about the caring nature of staff. We observed some warm and friendly interactions between people and all groups of staff. For example, we saw a person laughing and talking with a staff member. Their conversation was warm and mutually trusting. We found people were supported with personal care where needed and were well groomed and presented.

However, we also saw there were missed opportunities when staff could have engaged more with people and there was a focus on tasks. We saw staff completing records in the hallway when they could have been sat with people in the lounge areas. Staff monitored the lounge areas, but we did not observe staff routinely sitting with people and engaging meaningfully during the day and at mealtimes.

Staff spoke kindly about people and their role. Feedback from people and relatives was good in relation to the caring nature of staff. Comments included, “Staff are always friendly” and “I get on with staff. They are nice and they help me.”

However, we also observed occasions when people’s privacy and dignity were not respected. For example, 1 person whose bedroom was on the ground floor only had 1 curtain in place and we were told this had been broken for 2 days. This compromised the person’s privacy and dignity, and inspectors had to highlight this needed to be rectified.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were supported by consistent staff, and staff knew people’s needs and wishes well.

We saw positive examples of staff recognising and respecting people’s individual preferences, identities, and choices. However, there was a lack of availability of person-centred activities and opportunities for people. The activity board had not been updated since July 2026 and whilst we saw some people had the opportunity to go out most people sat in the lounges all day. This was also reflected in a review of people’s daily notes over a longer period, which showed minimal evidence of individualised activities or meaningful opportunities inside or outside of the service. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about individualised activities. Some people said they were sometimes supported to go out, whilst others commented there were limited activities, which led to boredom. The provider did have a ‘resident of the day’ initiative. One day a month people were supported with individual activities of their choice. People told us they looked forwards to this. The provider told us there were plans in place to increase activity options for people.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s independence was promoted, and this was reflected in feedback, our observations and people’s care records. For example, we saw staff gently encouraging a person to mobilise. They did this patiently and discretely and provided reassurance and encouragement. People were supported to be independent as part of routine tasks Some people were supported to be involved in cleaning their bedrooms and doing their own laundry. However, we did not see any evidence of people being supported in developing new skills to support them to potentially require less support from staff.

Staff spoke warmly about people and told us about examples where they promoted their independence and encouraged them to make choices. Comments included. “We offer choices and provide anything needed and check if they are happy and show respect.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and any changes they required in their support. Staff were visible and responsive when people requested care or support and responded in a timely way to call bells. We saw 1 person indicated they were in pain and staff responded promptly to this and reassured them whilst ensuring they received pain relieving medication.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The provider did not ensure staff were adequately supported, developed or enabled to provide person-centred care. There was a lack of leadership, structure and support for staff working within the service.

Staff told us they felt valued, and their health and wellbeing were actively promoted. Staff told us the provider had been supportive and made reasonable adjustments to working patterns to support them when requested. However, supervision and appraisal structures were not effective, which meant staff did not have regular time to discuss their role, wellbeing or personal development.