Manor Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service, and the information was used to inform care plans. The provider reviewed if the service could meet people’s needs and considered compatibility with other people already living at the service.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The service used evidence based good practice to plan people’s care and support. However, care records did not always reflect this, and updates did not fully evidence daily events and changes had been reviewed effectively. People’s involvement in their care plans was not evidenced.

People spoke positively about the choice and range of meals and snacks. The menu had good choice and people were able to request alternatives if their preference was for a different meal. The catering staff worked flexibly to ensure they were present for daily meal services, including breakfast, lunch and evening meals.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Systems were in place to support staff to share and pass on information about people’s needs to enable them to offer effective care. There were daily handovers in place to share relevant information, and we observed staff engaged in this process. Staff told us there could be improvements in communication, and records we requested were not always readily available. Staff felt supported and valued and involved in the day to day running of the home.

The service had links with other health and social care professionals and staff worked collaboratively with partners to share information and seek advice when needed. Feedback from healthcare partners was generally positive about information sharing.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to specialist support and professional advice, but this information was not always detailed in people’s care records. For example, we found communication about changes in a person’s medication had not been robustly shared with relevant staff. The GP visited the service weekly.

Whilst most people were able to access fresh air and the outdoors freely, we did not see evidence of other activities to enhance or promote their health. People were not encouraged to be physically active, and we observed prolonged periods where people were disengaged in communal areas.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We identified gaps in people’s monitoring which meant there was a lack of documented evidence robust oversight was in place where needed. For example, where people experienced periods of distress, or required medication, records were not always detailed which compromised the ability of the provider to have effective oversight and ensure consistent and responsive plans of care were in place.

The provider monitored nutritional and fluid intake and skin integrity well. A health care professional complimented the service on the way staff had monitored people’s skin, which had led to improvements.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Processes were in place to assess people’s mental capacity. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and be as least restrictive as possible. We identified 1 person where restrictions were in place, including bedrails and a sensor mat, and there were no best interest assessments in place to highlight if this was the least restrictive option. We discussed this with the provider, and they confirmed they would address this. Whilst we identified 2 incident forms which highlighted a lack of knowledge in relation to people’s capacity overall staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s rights, including people’s rights to make decisions which may be considered unwise.

Over the course of the assessment, we observed staff routinely offering choices and respecting people’s wishes. People and relatives told us their choices and rights were respected.