You are here

The Manor House Residential Home Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: The Manor House Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation for 15 people who require personal care, aged 65 and over. At the time of our visit 14 people were living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People at The Manor House were valued as individuals and treated with care and compassion. Staff knew each person well and provided person centred care. Staff engaged positively with people throughout the day. Staff knew how to communicate with people, so people understood the options available to them. The registered manager, director and staff extended their care and compassion to people’s family members and saw them as part of the home’s community.

Staff promoted people’s dignity and privacy. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken.

People’s views were sought, and opportunities taken to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and clear about what was expected of them. People’s care was provided in line with best practice. People were cared for by staff who received regular training that was tailored to meet the needs of the people living in the service.

People, relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about the registered manager and director. They were role models and staff had adopted the registered manager’s approach to the care of the people living in the service.

People lived in a service that kept them safe. Staff had been recruited safely and had received training on how to recognise and report abuse. People were supported to take their medicines safely. Audits and checks were carried out, so any problem could be identified and rectified.

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.

People’s needs and preferences regarding food and drink were known and respected. People told us they liked the food and staff gave examples of things they did to help ensure people got the food they liked, whilst maintain their health.

People’s views were sought and listened to in relation to the home. People were offered a variety of different ways to spend their time. Staff understood what people enjoyed doing and constantly worked to offer a variety of activities based on people’s preferred pastimes and hobbies.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection in September 2016 the service was rated as Good.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people continue to receive safe, compassionate, high quality care.

The service met the characteristics for a rating of "good" in all the key questions we inspected. Therefore, our overall rating for the service after this inspection was "good". For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Inspection carried out on 16 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 and 22 August 2016. The Manor House Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation for 15 people who require personal care. The service is intended for older adults. All rooms at the service are single occupancy. There is a lounge, dining room and television room on the ground floor. There were 14 people using the service on the first day of our inspection. A 15th person was in hospital.

We last inspected the service in October 2013 and found they were compliant with the regulations inspected.

The provider’s live at the service. One of the provider’s is the Registered Manager at the service. Throughout the report we have referred to this provider as the 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.

Everyone was positive about the registered manager and provider and felt they were approachable

and caring. They were both very visible at the service and were caring and supportive to staff as they felt this was then the culture in which staff cared for people at the service. They both demonstrated the principles of care as recorded on their website. ‘We aim to exhibit a high professional standard of care at all times and to act in such a manner as to justify trust and confidence.’

There were sufficient and suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The staff undertook additional shifts when necessary to ensure staffing levels were maintained and there was flexibility.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions made in line with the MCA.

People were supported by staff who had the required recruitment checks in place. However improvements were put into place during the inspection to have a more robust system to ensure all checks had been carried out.

Staff had received a full induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet. People, visitors and staff were very positive about the food at the service.

People said staff treated them with dignity and respect at all times in a caring and compassionate way. People received their prescribed medicines on time and in a safe way.

Staff supported people to follow their interests and take part in social activities. Staff undertook activities at the home and additional staff were brought in for people to be able to access the local community.

Risk assessments were undertaken for people to ensure their health needs were identified. Care plans reflected people’s needs and gave staff clear guidance about how to support them safely. They were personalised and people had been involved in their development. People were involved in making decisions and planning their own care on a day to day basis. They were referred promptly to health care services when required and received on-going healthcare support.

The provider had a quality monitoring system at the service. The provider actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff. There was a complaints procedure in place and the registered manager was aware how to respond to concerns appropriately. However there had been no complaints made at the service in the last year.

The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.

Inspection carried out on 10 October 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 13 people living at the home when we visited. We spoke with four people in some depth about their views of the service, and with two visitors. We spoke with other people more briefly and observed the support people in communal areas of the home received. We also spoke with a community nurse who supported people at the home as well as with the providers (who lived on site) and three care staff.

Typical sentiments or comments expressed to us included ''It’s like home from home” and “The staff are wonderful.” We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s current needs.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Whilst individuals’ independence was supported, action was taken to minimise risks to their wellbeing. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage medicines, protecting people against the risks associated with medicines.

Before people received any care they were asked for their consent, and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the mental ability or capacity to consent the provider acted in line with legal requirements, thus promoting individuals’ rights and welfare.

Everyone we spoke with was very satisfied with the home and the service people received. People told us they had no complaints about anything, with any comments or concerns they expressed responded to appropriately by the provider.

Inspection carried out on 17 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited The Manor House Residential Home unannounced on 17 December 2012. There were 14 people living at the home and one vacancy. We spent most of the day observing what was going on within the home and how staff cared for people. We spent individual time with seven people living at the home and observed lunch time. We also spoke with the providers and four staff.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People told us that they could do what they wanted at the home and we saw people being treated with dignity and respect. One person said “Beautiful, I couldn’t wish for a better home”. Another person said “It’s like living at the Ritz”.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to monitoring the quality of the service and ensuring that audit systems were working. As part of this, people who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and these were listened to and acted on. All comments about the home during the inspection from staff and people living at the home were very positive.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)