Manor Farm Residential 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People had opportunities to provide feedback about their care. People’s bedrooms were decorated to their preferences. People were involved in the reviews of their care which meant that care was person centred.

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. A healthcare partner spoke positively about how the service worked with them, to aid continuity of care.Staff told us how they worked with healthcare professionals such as the GP, district nurses, social workers, advocates, occupational therapists and private care agencies.

One relative explained how the service promoted continuity of care for their family member. They told us, “Since she came in her [health] has gradually deteriorated. I was worried and asked if they could still keep her and not move her onto a nursing home. They were reassuring and said they can cope with the [change in her condition]. If ever they think she’s not safe living there, they would approach us about other options.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had information recorded within their care plans about communication preferences and how peoples diagnosed conditions affected their communication, which was in line with the service’s Accessible Information Standards policy.

The manager told us, “We have care reviews monthly, the resident is involved, families are invited too if the resident is unable to communicate their wishes and needs. We do a ‘resident of day’ process, where the person’s care plan reviewed, all risk assessments, and we make that day around that resident. We are involving people continuously and trying to avoid task-based care.” We observed a whiteboard which had the date and the names of staff working that day to aid communication. We also observed there were pictorial signs such as a sign signifying a fire hazard.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People told us staff and leaders were approachable. One relative told us, “They do have a meeting you can go to; I don’t go myself because there’s always someone there in the office you can talk to if you want to.” Another relative told us, “We receive a regular newsletter and there and regular meetings. I don’t always go, sometimes my brother does.” People were involved in regular reviews of their care. The manager told us they had increased the resident meetings to monthly.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and relatives told us people had access to care, support and treatment. A relative told us, “[Person’s] own G.P goes into the home once a week. The staff asked him to look at her [medical concern]”. Staff told us they supported people to access healthcare treatment where needed and we saw evidence of referrals made where appropriate.

Staff and leaders 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. The provider used a ‘Resident of the Day’ system which meant that all people at the service had the opportunity to provide feedback about their care on a 1:1 basis. This included discussions about meals and activity preferences. There were opportunities for people to access the community.

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 life. People had plans in place for end-of-life care. These contained individual preferences such as wanting to remain comfortable at home, and there was evidence of discussions taking place with relatives regarding these plans. Staff had received training in end-of-life care. A staff member told us they felt confident in this aspect of care.