The Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service registered under different legal entity/provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.We observed majority of the time staff were kind and attentive to people. However, we also observed some interactions that needed improving. For example, one staff member did not always use people’s names, but used ‘him or her’ to refer to people. We observed another staff member assisting a person with lunch, only saying, “Open your mouth, open your mouth, that’s good” when the person took a spoonful of food into their mouth. This did not demonstrate staff’s kind approach to support the person with a positive dining experience.One person told staff they did not want their meal, so the staff member took it away and gave the person pudding, but no alternatives were offered. We also observed another staff member supporting someone to mobilise in the corridor. Staff walked in front of the person rather than walking next to them and attempting to engage in conversation. We found that when some people experienced distress and anxiety, staff did not demonstrate that they provided reassurance to people before using a sedative medicine as a last resort. This meant people were not always supported in the least restrictive way and person-centred way. We shared our observations with the management team, who would discuss these observations further.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received care and support from the staff who knew them and their needs well. This meant they received person-centred care that was meaningful to them. Where needed, the manager or senior staff would contact relevant professionals to work together and look after the people.Staff kept daily notes for people to capture the support provided to keep everyone involved and up to date. Staff also had handovers to discuss people’s needs, activities and any other matters of importance. This helped to ensure people’s care and support were coordinated. People and relatives were positive about receiving continued care based on their needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The manager was aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Since 2016, organisations providing publicly funded adult social care have been legally required to comply with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which ensures information is provided in a way people can understand.We discussed this with the managers to ensure they were meeting the standard. Staff confirmed they had access to the information about plans of care for the people. One staff added, “I work with residents who lack capacity, so I am aware of the importance of making sure I am doing everything according to their needs as written in their care plan.” We observed a number of staff and people interactions, and staff were aware how to help people communicate their wishes and feelings. People were listened to by staff and given time to respond or ask for the things they needed. Staff responded accordingly and helped with their requests respectfully and politely.

The provider and the staff made it easy for people and relatives to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people and relatives in decisions about their care and communicated with them. People and relatives were able to contact the provider or staff to raise any concerns.The manager took feedback and any concerns seriously and used this as an opportunity to review and improve the quality of the service. They encouraged people, relatives and staff to come to them to ensure they were able to capture any issues and respond to complaints in a timely way. People and relatives told us they would talk to the staff if they had any issues or queries to raise. Staff felt confident the manager would address any issues should anyone raise a concern with them.

The provider and the staff made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The manager communicated with different professionals as and when needed to oversee and manage people’s changing needs. The manager and the staff worked together to respond effectively to those changes. The manager said they had good networks in the area, and they could approach different teams for support. They told us they had not experienced any barriers when supporting people to access different services. They added, “We have to be the advocate for the people and them accessing the services that people may need.”Staff knew when to take action promptly and work with the provider so they could make referrals to other health and well-being professionals to address any issues with their health or changing needs. One staff added, “There is definitely good access to external professionals. As a staff team, we are so much more proactive since the new manager came on site. The managers are so involved and staff are much more diligent in making external referrals. This is encouraged and staff feel more empowered to do this.”

The manager and the staff actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, one person had a significant change in their life which affected their health and emotional wellbeing. Staff arranged a routine health appointment for the person but they decided not to attend it due to their distress and being upset. The manager and staff worked together with the person to discuss how they could best support the person to reduce the stress of going out for appointments but also ensure their health was also attended to. People and relatives were supported to give their views about their experience to ensure they had a positive experience while using the service. The provider was in regular communication with them to ensure any issues or queries were picked up and addressed without delay.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their lives.Information was captured as part of reviews in the care plans to ensure any specific wishes, treatment and support were accurate. Where needed, health professionals were involved to review any specific aspects of care or treatment.The manager noted they prioritised people’s wishes, such as to stay at the service, even when their health deteriorated. The manager said the staff had received training in the Gold Standard Framework (GSF). GSF is a practical and evidence-basedend of lifecare service improvement programme. The manager added, “We support families as much as the person, and help them navigate. GSF is a great tool for staff.” Some staff told us they were aware of people’s plans of care including the importance of comfort and dignity especially at the end of life. There was one person receiving end of life care, and their condition was stable. The person was monitored constantly, with any changes or progress appropriately documented.