Archived: Manor View Care Home

The home had a registered manager. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. This inspection took place on 26 May 2016 and was unannounced.

On the day of our inspection there was a homely atmosphere. Staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful way. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence and to pursue their interests and hobbies. They made choices about their day to day lives which were respected by staff. One person said, "I make my own decisions and staff help me to achieve them."

People who lived in the home described a caring approach by staff. One person said, "The staff are wonderful." Another told us, "They are all very kind and caring." Where possible people were involved in planning and reviewing their own care. Staff respected people's privacy and were aware of issues of confidentiality. Staff ensured people's legal rights were protected.

There were regular reviews of people's health and care needs and staff responded promptly to any changes. People saw health and social care professionals to ensure they received treatment and support for their specific needs. Care records were well kept but some aspects and daily records needed more detail.

People told us staff took the time to talk to them; staff asked them about their life history, their interests, hobbies and preferred routines. There was a varied programme of activities and outings each month in line with people's interests. People had a choice of nutritious, home cooked food.

People said the home was a safe place to live. One person told us, "It's definitely a safe place for me to be." People had developed friendships with others who lived in

the home. Friends and relatives could visit at any time.

There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. People liked and trusted the manager. All staff worked to provide the best level of care they could to people. The aims of the service were well defined and carried out by the staff team. There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan on-going improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people's views about their care and the running of the home.

Is the service safe?

Through care planning and risk assessments, care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding people who use the service. People using the service told us they felt safe. One person told us: "I have confidence in all the staff if anything is wrong."

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had been submitted, policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand how and when to submit an application.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We checked nine care plans, and saw that each one contained assessments of people’s care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person’s needs were met. Staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. We saw that whenever staff helped people they ensured they discussed with people first what was going to happen. We observed a game of skittles taking place in the home. The staff facilitating this took time to ensure that everyone taking part was included, and led the game in a way that meant everyone was involved. The people we spoke with told us that they enjoyed this activity.

One person told us, “It’s a great place to live, the food is good and the staff are smashing.” Another person who used the service told us, “The staff are always smart and polite.”

Is the service responsive?

The service supported people in accessing the community to pursue their interests and aspirations. Staff acted on people's needs and in accordance with their wishes. Where people's health needs changed, staff ensured that their support accommodated their changing needs. The service responded positively to feedback from customer surveys, for example we saw pictoral menus were in place.

Is the service well led?

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The provider also had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

Staff told us that they felt supported and well led. They also said that regular auditing of varying aspects of the home ensured they knew the standards to be achieved.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. One person said: "Staff are always nice and kind." Another person said: "The food is very good here, I can't knock it at all.' A visiting doctor told us: 'The nursing staff at Manor View and Church View are very proactive and communicate well.'

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

The appropriate procedure was followed where people were not able to give consent. We spoke with relatives of people who used the service and they said that staff respected the decisions made on behalf of their relative.

People who used the service had a care plan which was relevant to their individual needs. Some people were able to participate in appropriate activities throughout the day. We observed staff working with people who used the service; however some staff appeared to be task focused.

We found that the home worked well with other professionals. People who used the service were supported to access other professionals when required.

We saw that medication was always clearly recorded and administered safely.

We spoke to four members of staff who told us that they enjoyed their job and they felt supported by their managers. One member of staff said 'We have regular team meetings and we can talk to the manager if we need to.'

People knew how to complain if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available. One relative said 'I have never needed to complain but I would tell staff if I needed to.' Another relative said 'Staff would sort out any problems.'