• Care Home
  • Care home

Manor House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

135 Looseleigh Lane, Derriford, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 5JE (01752) 777572

Provided and run by:
South West Care Homes Limited

All Inspections

30 October 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Manor House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 15 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 30 people.

Manor House is in a residential area and is an adapted older style two floor detached building with a garden. There is lift access for people who may struggle with stairs.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Prior to our last inspection the nominated individual had identified there were concerns in the service and raised a safeguarding alert. When we inspected in November 2019 some action had been taken to make people safer but there were still several concerns. At this inspection we found there were no longer breaches in regulation and recommendations have been met. The service had gradually improved over the twelve months between inspections.

People looked happy, healthy and responded positively when staff approached them or spoke with them. The atmosphere was friendly and peaceful.

Improvements to the environment were clear, renovations had taken place in several rooms, and improvements had been made to the laundry, bedrooms, fire systems and dining area.

Risks were assessed and monitored, and guidance given to staff on how to mitigate them. Risks that people faced and care needs were regularly reviewed. Learning from accidents and incidents was shared and clear systems were in place for safeguarding concerns.

Medicines were managed safely. Improvements to infection control processes had been made. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) and clear guidance was in place regarding keeping people safe from the risks associated with the coronavirus pandemic. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough of them to meet people’s needs.

Quality systems were robust and staffing structure and accountabilities were clear. Relatives gave us positive feedback about the manager and care staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 5 December 2019). At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

We had previously carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 4 November 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve safe care and treatment and good governance.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Manor House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

4 November 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Manor House is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 30 older people who might also be living with dementia. It is owned by South West Care Homes Ltd who own and manage eight other care homes in the South West. At the time of the inspection, 19 people were living at the home. Accommodation is provided in one adapted building. Passenger lifts provide access to the upper floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Prior to this inspection, the service’s nominated individual alerted CQC to their own concerns about poor care practice and people’s safety. People had been placed at risk of receiving unsafe care. Action was taken to immediately safeguard people. A nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. Following that action, further concerns were raised by the ambulance service over whether people were receiving safe care.

The service was working co-operatively with the local authority’s safeguarding team and the police who were investigating allegations of unsafe care. These investigations had not concluded at the time of this inspection. People would not be admitted to the service until the local authority could be assured people were safe. The provider also voluntarily suspended placements at the home.

People could not be assured all risks to their safety arising from their care needs were being mitigated. For example, equipment used to reduce people’s risk of developing a pressure ulcer was incorrectly set. Other risks relating to the risk of falls and poor nutrition were being managed well.

Care plans did not provide staff with accurate information about people’s needs. This placed people at risk of not having their needs met in a consistent or safe way.

There were insufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs in a timely way and to keep people safe. However, following the inspection, care staff numbers had increased. We recommended staffing levels were kept under review.

People were not being protected from the risk of cross infection. Large piles of unclean laundry were on the laundry room floor waiting to be washed and the sink in the sluice room, where staff washed commode pans, was dirty. An agency had been employed to undertake a thorough clean of the communal areas and people’s bedrooms.

People’s medicines were being managed safely. Although we made a recommendation about recording the time people were given pain reliving medicines, as well as storage of medicine stocks.

People told us they felt safe and were happy living at Manor House.

Staff told us they had confidence in the new manager and the senior management team to address issues of poor practice and to make changes to improve the quality of care people received. Staff said they now felt listened to when they hadn’t in the past.

We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 16 August 2018).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to the management of the home and whether people were receiving safe care. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the Key Questions of Safe and Well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other Key Questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those Key Questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Although the provider has taken action to mitigate risks, this had not yet resulted in a safe service. Please see the Safe and Well-led sections of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Manor House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

3 July 2018

During a routine inspection

Manor House is a residential care home for up to 30 older people, most of whom live with a degree of dementia. Nursing care can be provided through the local community nursing services if appropriate. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Manor House is an old Georgian building set over various floors and extensions with a range of communal spaces leading onto a secure garden and outdoor spaces in Plymouth. South West Care Homes Limited also operates 10 other services in the South West from a head office.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. There had been a recent safeguarding concern resulting in the dismissal of three night care workers but this had been managed well and in partnership with the local authority safeguarding team.

We made a recommendation to ensure that despite audits identifying improvements were required that timely actions were taken to maintain a comfortable and pleasant environment for people.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Manor House on 3 and 4 July 2018. At the time of the inspection 27 people were living at Manor House. The registered manager was on sick leave during our inspection. The service was being managed by a deputy manager with the support of another registered manager from the provider’s other service locally and a regional manager based at Manor House. They were supported by team leaders and care workers and ancilliary staff. The provider oversaw the running of the service from a head office and completed regular visits and audits. 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.

On the day of the inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful way. People were able to choose what they wanted to do and enjoyed spending time with the staff who were visible and attentive. There was a lot of staff interaction and engagement with people, most of whom were living with dementia and unable to tell us directly about their experiences. They looked comfortable and happy to spend time in the communal areas or in their rooms.

People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence, emphasised by some people being supported to return home to the community. There was a sense of purpose as people engaged with staff, watched what was going on, played games and pottered around the home or went outside. The majority of people were living with dementia and were independently mobile or required some assistance from one care worker. Staff engaged with them in ways which reflected people's individual needs and understanding, ensuring people mobilised safely from a discreet distance.

People were provided with good opportunities for activities, engagement and sometimes trips out. These were well thought out in an individual way and the regional manager was looking at developing a more robust way of ensuring all individuals had their social needs met with the help of a new activity co-ordinator in the near future. People could choose to take part if they wished and when some people preferred to stay in their rooms, staff checked them regularly spending one to one time with them.

People and relatives said the home was a safe place for them to live. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected. Any safeguarding concerns had been managed well with provider involvement and staff support and the service worked in partnership with the local authority safeguarding team. Relatives said they would speak with staff if they had any concerns and issues would be addressed and people seemed happy to go over to staff and indicate if they needed any assistance. Staff were vigilant about protecting each person from possible negative interactions with other people living at the home, recognising frustrations and misunderstandings between people due to them living with dementia. They used chatting and distraction techniques as they knew people well, showing patience and understanding. People and relatives knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to but felt that issues would usually be resolved informally.

People were well cared for and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care as most people were not able to be involved due to living with dementia. The computerised person centred care planning system enabled relatives to safely access care records and share information and photographs from afar. Care plans showed that people were enabled to make smaller day to day choices such as what drink they would like or what clothes to choose. Where people had short term memory loss staff were patient in repeating choices each time and explaining what was going on and listening to people's repeated stories.

There were regular reviews of people's health, and staff responded promptly to changes in need. For example, care records showed many examples of staff identifying changes in need and appropriate and timely referrals to health professionals with positive results for people.

People were assisted to attend appointments with appropriate health and social care professionals to ensure they received treatment and support for their specific needs. Staff knew when people did not appear ‘right’ and acted as advocates to ensure they received the right health care.

Medicines were well managed and stored in line with national guidance. Records were completed with no gaps and there were regular audits of medication records and administration and to ensure the correct medication stock levels were in place.

Staff had good knowledge of people, including their needs and preferences. Care plans were individualised and comprehensive ensuring staff had up to date information in order to meet people's individual needs effectively. Handover and communication between staff shifts was good so there was consistent care.

Staff were well trained and there were good opportunities for on-going training and obtaining additional qualifications. The care staff team was stable and many care staff had worked at the home for some years. Training was inclusive, each staff member attended, for example the maintenance person had been trained in specialist dementia care. Staff felt well supported through recent changes in management provision whilst the registered manager was on sick leave.

People's privacy was respected. Staff ensured people kept in touch with family and friends, inviting friends and family to events regularly. Relatives told us they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time, use the quieter lounges and make hot drinks. People were able to see their visitors in communal areas or in private. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The staff and managers showed great enthusiasm in wanting to provide the best level of care possible and valued their staff team. They identified staff skills and matched staff to people’s personalities. Staff gave examples of particularly rewarding work with people. Staff showed a caring ethos and this showed in the way they cared for people in individualised ways. During the inspection staff had a lovely sing song and dance with people and knew and respected how people living with dementia viewed their world.

Observations of meal times showed these to be a positive experience, with people being supported to eat a meal of their choice where they chose to eat it. Staff engaged in conversation with people and encouraged them throughout the meal, noting who liked to sit with whom, often taking their meal with people too. Nutritional assessments were in place and special dietary needs were catered for as well as specialist crockery and cutlery and finger foods to aid

independence for people living with dementia.

There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements overseen by regular provider audits. There were systems in place to share information and seek people's views about the running of the home, including relatives and stakeholders. All responses were positive from the recent quality assurance questionnaire. People's views were acted upon where possible and practical, and included those living with dementia. Their views were valued and they were able to have meaningful input into the running of the home, such as activities they would like to do, which mattered to them. A monthly newsletter and notice board kept people up to date with regular ‘tea and chat’ with the manager. encouraged families and children to attend, with face painting and a bouncy castle.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

16 February 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 16 and 17 February 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on the 19 January 2015 we judged the service required improvement. We breached the service in relation to the care and welfare of people who used the service because care was not planned in such a way as to meet people’s individual needs. We asked the provider to report to us what they were going to do to put this right. We reviewed this during this inspection and found this had been addressed.

Manor House can accommodate up to 30 older people who may be living with dementia. On this inspection 26 people were living at the service.

A registered manager was employed to manage the service. 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.

People told us they were safe and happy living at Manor House and were looked after by staff who were kind and treated them with respect, compassion and understanding.

People felt in control of their care. People’s medicines were administered safely and they had their nutritional and health needs met. People could see other health professionals as required. People had risk assessments in place so they could live safely at the service. These were clearly linked to people’s care plans and staff training to ensure care met people’s individual needs. People’s care plans were written with them, were personalised and reflected how people wanted their care delivered. People’s end of life needs were planned with them. People were supported to end their life with dignity and free of pain.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Staff were recruited safely and underwent training to ensure they were able to carry out their role effectively. Staff were trained to meet people’s specific needs. Staff promoted people’s rights to be involved in planning and consenting to their care. Where people were not able to consent to their care, staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people’s human rights were upheld. Staff maintained safe infection control practices.

Activities were provided to keep people physically and cognitively stimulated. People’s faith and cultural needs were met. The service was adapted to meet the needs of people so they could live as full a life as possible.

There were clear systems of governance and leadership in place. The provider and registered manager ensured there were systems in place to measure the quality of the service. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback on the service. Everyone felt they were listened to and any contribution they made was taken seriously. Regular audits made sure the service was running well. Where issues were noted, action was taken to put this right.

19 January 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Manor House on the 19 January, the inspection was unannounced.

Manor House is a registered care home for up to 30 older people. At the time of the inspection 27 people were living at Manor House some of whom were living with dementia. 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.

Manor House is an older style property near the centre of Plymouth. Parts of the home had been redecorated and where this had occurred it had been done with regard to people’s dementia needs. There were signs to assist people to move around the home independently and bedroom doors were personalised. Some parts of the home were in need of redecoration and we were told there were plans in place for this to happen. We found two areas of the home which were unsafe for people. We have made a recommendation about keeping people safe in their environment. We will follow up recommendations at the next inspection.

People told us they felt safe and were happy living at Manor House. One person told us, “I like it here very much. The girls [staff] are wonderful, there’s nothing they wouldn’t do for me. I’m very happy here, the food is lovely and the activities fun.”

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. There was a robust recruitment system in place which protected people from the risk of being supported by staff who were unsuitable.

Staff knew the people they supported well and had a good understanding of their needs. We observed staff took account of people’s communication preferences and were thoughtful and compassionate in their approach to them. One person told us, “I get on very well with the staff. They couldn’t look after me better if I was their own family.”

Some people were having their liberty restricted without the proper authorisation as laid down by the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated DoLS. The registered manager told us they would address this in the very near future.

People were able to make choices about how and where they spent their time. They told us they went to bed and got up at a time that suited them. People were encouraged to take part in a wide range of activities within the home although there had been no activities outside of the home for some time. There were plans to hire a vehicle which would make this possible in the future.

Care plans held detailed information and guidance for staff on how to support people. However systems to ensure staff were up to date about any changes in people’s needs were inconsistent. We saw gaps in night shift notes and the way in which care plans were written and updated meant the most recent information could be difficult to locate.

The registered manager was available for staff, people and relatives if they wanted information or advice. We observed them in the home talking with people and their relatives and noted the conversations were friendly and relaxed.

Staff told us they were well supported and a close team with a mix of skills and experience. Training was thorough and included subject areas specific to the needs of people living at Manor House.

Regular audits took place within the home. These records were reviewed regularly by the provider. This meant any trends were highlighted and could be acted upon.

We identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. The actions we have asked the provider to take are detailed at the end of the full version of the report.

12 October 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us "I couldn't be happier here"; "So well looked after, 1st class"; "I like a drink (alcoholic) and am allowed this"; "If staff have to do anything privately for me they always shut the door"; "Staff are polite and courteous."

We found people were able to express their views about the service through resident meetings and six monthly questionnaires. Some people were also involved in the recruitment processes for new staff.

We found that people were involved in the assessment process and in the care planning processes but assessments were not reviewed to ensure the safety and welfare of people living at the Manor House.

We found people had their nutritional requirements assessed and action was taken to ensure people received the support they required to maintain their nutritional needs. People at the Manor House had a well balanced diet.

Staff were well trained, supported in their roles and had access to regular informal and formal meetings with their manager to discuss clinical situations and their own professional development.

13 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. The inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect. Their individuality was recognised and they were supported to make their own choices.

Care records were written with people and reflected their wishes. They were written in a style that people could understand. People using the service and their relatives confirmed they felt involved in their formulation.

We found the staff understood people's needs and knew how to support them. One person using the service said, 'They are always polite, friendly professional and know what I want. Nothing is ever too much trouble.'

We saw that suitable systems were in place to manage medicines.

We found disclosure and barring service checks had been carried out. This meant people using the service were appropriately protected.

We saw complaints information was available and people confirmed they felt able to raise a concern.