Manifolds care Also known as Regus

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and support was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Initial care packages were commissioned and assessed by an external partner community outreach team, which had subsequently appointed Manifolds Care to deliver care and support. The registered manager reviewed the initial assessment and resulting care plan to ensure the service could safely and effectively meet people’s needs before care commenced.

Assessments were kept under review, with systems in place to identify and respond to any changes in people’s needs. A relative told us, “I am fully involved, the [case manager] checks everything,”

The registered manager described how they worked collaboratively with external professionals, stating, “Any concerns are sent to the community team straight away.” This supported timely reassessment and ensured people received coordinated care that reflected their current needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

As identified within the risk section, monitoring documentation did not consistently align with the guidance set out in care plans, particularly in relation to hydration. We discussed this with the registered manager, who advised they would review this area of practice with staff to ensure greater consistency. However, daily records were detailed and clearly described the care being delivered by staff.

Guidance from health professionals, including speech and language therapists, was appropriately incorporated into people’s care plans. One staff member told us, “Due to the person’s condition, we have regular hospital reviews and know what to look out for. If we have any concerns, we arrange appointments.”

Care plans clearly documented people’s risks, preferences, and choices relating to their nutrition and hydration.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals, such as physiotherapists, GPs, and care coordinators, to ensure people received appropriate care and achieved positive outcomes. We observed care records where people were supported to undertake exercises recommended by professionals.

Staff were positive about team work at Manifolds Care. A staff member told us, “Teamwork is excellent, now it is superb. We have regular meetings and we do discuss accidents/incidents, reports we discuss as a team and we do learn lessons.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments, monitored their health needs effectively and reported concerns promptly. There were clear records of appointments recorded. A staff member told us, “Yes [person] has fair access to other healthcare professionals such as the GP and dentist. I do support with appointments.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However, some improvement was needed to record keeping to promote a consistent approach.

Guidance was available to staff on how to monitor people’s health and wellbeing proactively. However, whilst people, relatives and staff confirmed regular checks were in place, record keeping in this area was not consistent. For example, repositioning charts did not always align with the guidance in the care plan, but care notes were recording regular skin checks.

The registered manager told us they would be introducing a structure programme of spot checks to increase oversight in this area.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Mental Capacity Act (MCA) documentation was not always robust or consistently applied. We found multiple decisions recorded on single MCA assessments, which limited clarity and decision-specific analysis. There was not always information recorded about best interest information.

However, staff had completed training in this area and were clear about asking for consent. A staff member told us, “My understanding of the Mental Capacity Act is that every person should be assumed to have capacity unless assessed otherwise and people should be supported to make their own decisions wherever possible. I ensure people have choice by involving them in decisions about their care, respecting their preferences, providing information in a way they can understand.”