Manor Farm Residential 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 remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The service completed comprehensive initial assessments of people’s needs, to assess their suitability for the service. People’s care plans and risk assessment were regularly reviewed which meant people’s needs were assessed and up to date.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care was being tailored to meet the needs of people who live in the service. The provider used evidence-based tools within their care planning arrangements, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). People were involved in regular reviews of their care which meant their care was evidence based.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff told us they worked well with other services such as healthcare professionals and a health professional confirmed this. One staff member told us they felt staff did not always work well together in relation to covering shifts. However, the new manager was making improvements to the way staff worked together such as implementing allocation forms for tasks.

The provider supported 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. People’s healthcare needs were regularly monitored and the staff referred people to other healthcare professionals where appropriate. One relative told us, “When [person] first moved in, she used to sleep all day and walk around at night. They’ve managed to help turn this round so I think she’s getting the care she needs there.” People’s care plans contained information about their health needs to support staff to understand how these should be monitored. Staff told us they felt people’s needs were met.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s needs were regularly monitored, reviewed and assessed. Staff told us that people have nominated key workers that are rotated where care plans and service users are regularly updated. Daily records of care showed people’s needs were regularly monitored, such as food and fluid monitoring where appropriate. People and their relatives felt people’s needs were regularly monitored. One relative told us about good communication with the service in relation to a person’s health condition.

Processes to assess whether people had capacity to make specific decisions and to make best interest decisions on their behalf were not always in line with legislation and national guidelines. We identified that best interest decisions had not been recorded following the assessments of people’s capacity. This meant there was a risk that decisions were being made for people which may have been not in their best interest.

We also observed some staff did not always seek consent before supporting people. For example, we saw one staff member repeatedly offering a person food despite this person showing signs of refusing this. This meant the person appeared distressed.

On review of training records, we identified 8 out of 13 care staff had not completed training in the MCA and Deprivation of Liberties Awareness (DoLS). This meant there was a risk staff did not recognise when a person lacks the mental capacity to make a specific decision. This could lead to staff making decisions on behalf of the person without following the legal framework.

However, staff we spoke with understood what this legislation meant. People were involved in the reviews of their care, and we observed these discussions during our site visit.