The Manor House 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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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. Feedback from people and relatives was very positive about the care being delivered. People were cared for in a person-centred way. For example, outcomes for people were individual and monitored by the staff team. People and the team worked together to achieve goals. One person told us they wanted to leave the home and live back in their own home. There was a very clear plan for this to be achieved. It was clear that the persons wish was being addressed by the team. The person told us the team were assisting them to move on, and they were very happy with the progress.

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. Staff knew people well and how to meet their care needs. Most staff had worked in the home for a long time. Staff had built relationships with people. The provider had engaged with a variety of other teams such as the older people’s mental health team and the district nurse team, amongst others. Referrals to other professionals were made in a timely manner. The provider worked in a flexible way and made sure people had the support they needed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Communication needs were assessed by the provider. Information was provided in a way which was accessible and understood by people. We observed staff engaging with people during our visit. Some people preferred to use body language and others preferred to have information written down for them. Staff adapted their communication style to suit the individual.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they knew who to complain to if needed. There was a complaints procedure. Feedback was provided by people and relatives through phone contact, meetings, reviews and emails. A newsletter was available if required. Questionnaires had been sent to people to seek their views. The results of these would be analysed and changes were communicated to people through a meeting. For example, some people had asked for different meals on the menu, this was communicated to the kitchen staff following the meeting.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Referrals were sent to health care professionals on a regular basis. People had access to a range to health care professionals. People were supported by the team to attend medical appointments in the community. The GP made regular calls to the service and if needed would attend the home.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

In one example, a person with complex needs was supported by the team to explore an alternative medicine to improve their condition. The registered manager and team sought expert specialist advice. Following a consultation, additional specialist training was provided by the hospital for staff and a person to be able to administer the new medicine. Additional observations and weekly monitoring was put in place. Feedback from the consultant team showed the new regime surpassed clinical expectations. This meant the person could take more control of their medicine and be more independent. The new medicine had more benefits to the person. It supported a better quality of life. Staff showed commitment and dedication enabling a person to live a fuller life. Peoples care plans were tailored for each person. Outcomes for people were realistic and documented. Reviews of people’s needs were carried out regularly. People had access to health care professionals including experts in specialist areas of medicine when required.

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 told us they had expressed their wishes about their future to the team. Care records showed information about end-of-life care was available if needed. Staff understood the importance of people being able to plan for future events. Feedback from families was very positive for how well the team had looked after and managed end of life care.