You are here

Manor Community Care Home Outstanding

Reports


Inspection carried out on 27 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 and 28 June 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out April 2013 and there had been no breaches of legal requirements at that time. We had no previous concerns prior to this inspection.

The service provides accommodation for up to 10 people with mental health needs and who may also have a secondary diagnosis of learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our visit there were nine people living at the service. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The views of people were sought in a way that was informal, relaxed and tailored to their individual needs. This demonstrated a person centred ethos and creativity and, ensured any barriers to effective communication were overcome. They used a sensitive approach that respected people’s cultural backgrounds and mental health needs. We found during our visit that spending time with people and talking about things important to them, was an approach they were more familiar and comfortable with and enabled us to assess their experience of the service more effectively than asking more direct questions. Staff supported this and introduced us to everyone individually and explained why we were visiting.

The registered manager listened to people and staff to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. They demonstrated their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service and used a risk based approach to help ensure that staffing levels and the staff skill mix was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They enjoyed training and sharing what they had learnt with colleagues. Staff were supported by the provider and the registered manager at all times. The service complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People received a varied nutritious diet, suited to individual preferences and requirements. Mealtimes were flexible and taken in a setting where people chose. Staff took prompt action when people required access to community services for expert treatment or advice.

Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner. It was evident that they were committed to the people they supported. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful.

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and personalised. Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals and where necessary care and support had been changed to accurately reflect people's needs. People experienced a lifestyle that met their individual expectations, capacity and preferences.

Everyone involved in this inspection demonstrated a genuine passion for the roles they performed and individual responsibilities. They wanted to ensure that those living at the service felt safe and valued. Staff embraced new initiatives with the support of the registered manager and colleagues. They continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt empowered to make positive changes.

Inspection carried out on 25 April 2013

During a routine inspection

Part of this inspection was to follow up three outcome areas where the provider was found to be non compliant at the inspection of August 2012. The areas of non compliance were with regards to the environment people lived in.

We saw that significant improvements had been made so that people were safe and provided with a comfortable, clean home to live in.

People were being looked after and supported appropriately by all staff. They were happy and positive about Manor Community Care Home and the lives that they were living.

Staff were dedicated and caring. It was evident through observation and in discussions that they enjoyed working in the home and supporting people.

Inspection carried out on 19 July 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

People living in the home were independent throughout the day of our visit spending time as they wished. Some people were out, others relaxed in the communal rooms, their own rooms and in the garden.

There was a constant verbal interaction between staff and people in the home; everyone was relaxed, happy and comfortable in each others company.

We were introduced to people throughout the day and they welcomed us to their home. They talked freely with staff in front of us and people were confident and assertive in their surroundings.

Seven people were living in the home at the time of our visit. We were assisted by the manager and deputy and we spoke at length with one of the two support workers on duty.

Inspection carried out on 20 December 2011 and 19 July 2012

During a routine inspection

The people we consulted about their experiences of living in the home told us that they were able to make decisions about all aspects of their lives and they felt respected by the staff.

Although the people we asked could not recall having a care plan or attending reviews of care, they said staff discussed their needs with them. One person said that staff asked them how they wanted their care to be provided and another person described the support provided by the staff. A third person we consulted said that they did not like the home because the home did not provide the appropriate level of support to meet their needs.

Feedback from people about the staff was positive. One person said “there is some decent staff working here,” while other people named the staff they preferred to provide their care. We were told that staff supported them to find employment; they helped with budgeting and accompanied them on health care visits.

People told us that the food at the home was good and they had enough to eat.

When we asked people if they felt safe from abuse, they responded in a positive way. We also asked who they would approach with concerns and they gave the name of the staff they would go to with complaints. One person said “there is nothing to complain about.”