Manor Farm Residential 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. We observed staff did not always respond in a way that showed kindness, compassion and dignity. For example, one person was regularly calling out and asking about dinner, due to a prolonged waiting time for lunch. Staff did not respond or reassure this person. This left the person appearing distressed.

We observed staff did not always engage with people when supporting them at mealtimes, and we observed one agency staff member standing next to a person who was sat down, whilst supporting the person to eat. The senior care staff on duty addressed this with the staff member, but we noted the staff member continued not to engage with the person and continued to offer the person their food, despite the person clearly refusing this and appearing distressed.

Staff told us they were not always treated with kindness, compassion and dignity from some leaders. A staff member told us that some staff refused to support people with personal care needs and that this had been overlooked by senior management.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People’s care plans contained information about their preferences and life history. People were involved in regular reviews of their care. People told us about their likes and dislikes and told us they had access to things they enjoyed.

The provider promoted people’s independence. We observed people being asked where they would like to sit for their meal and a choice of drinks. People were involved in the review of their care which promoted independence, choice and control.

People’s care plans contained information about which aspects of care they required support in, as well as the areas in which they were able to maintain independence. However, we received mixed feedback from staff about how the service encourages people to be independent. One staff member told us people were encouraged to self-care where able to do so. However, another staff member told us they felt the environment did not promote independence and told us they felt there were limited opportunities for people to access the community. We observed one person express they didn’t like the main meal on the menu and was told they had something else for dinner; but was provided with the main meal. This meant the person’s choice was not respected at this time.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We observed people’s needs were not always met in a timely manner during our site visit, such as staff not responding to a person calling out multiple times.

We received mixed feedback from staff about the timeliness of people’s needs being met. One staff member told us, “[People’s needs are not always met in a timely way] due to short staffing levels, and the ratio of staff to service users. Another staff member told us, “Staff appear to get to residents to meet their needs as quickly as possible. I have seen some residents who appear to be highly demanding or repetitive, and staff can appear to be frustrated by this at times. For example, saying ‘that's how she is’ or ‘she always acts like that’.”

Some people told us it can take a long time for staff to come to support them. However, during our site visit we observed another person who appeared distressed and confused, and a staff member supported this person in a timely way and de-escalated the situation. A relative told us, “If the staff see or hear a resident in the lounge say something inappropriate, they deal with it very quickly and discreetly."

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. For example, staff raised concerns about the way they were supported by previous managers and senior leaders. Two staff told us they had been subject to bullying and harassment and raised concerns about the lack of support. One staff member told us, “I have felt bullied and under stress from how other staff seem stressed and unsupported.” Another staff member told us, “I do not feel that the service promotes well-being and have not been made aware of any internal or external support.”

The new manager was aware of the poor culture at the service and had introduced measures to improve this, such as introducing staff questionnaires and completing new supervisions and team meetings with staff to support wellbeing. Staff appeared to feel more positive following the new manager starting at the service.