You are here

Hinstock Manor Residential Home Limited Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Hinstock Manor Residential Home Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 May 2017

Hinstock Manor is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 51 older people who may have support needs owing to dementia and physical disabilities. There were 41 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

This inspection took place on 14 March 2017 and was unannounced.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

At the last inspection on 2 and 3 December 2015 we judged that the provider needed to improve the service in all five key questions. We found that improvements had been made in all areas of service delivery.

People were helped to feel safe. Staff knew what action to take to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the risks to individual people's safety and shared information with other staff so people's safety needs would be met. There were enough staff employed to care for people and people told us staff knew their care and safety needs well.

Staff had opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills they needed to care for people. Further training for staff was being planned, so people's needs would continue to be met. People's right to make their own decisions was respected by staff. People enjoyed their mealtime experience, and had enough to eat and drink to remain well.

Staff took action to support people if they required medical assistance, and advice provided by health professionals was implemented. As a result, people were supported to maintain their health.

Caring relationships had been built between people, their relatives and the staff who supported them. Staff took action to show people they were valued and knew about their histories and preferences. Staff offered people reassurance in the ways they preferred when they were anxious. People's right to privacy was taken into account in the way staff cared for them. People were encouraged to make their own day to day decisions about their care.

People were involved in deciding how their care should be planned and risks to their well-being responded to. Where people were not able to make all of their own decisions their representatives and relatives were consulted. Relatives told us their suggestions for developing their family member's care further were listened to.

People's care plans and risk assessments were updated as their needs changed. People and their relatives understood how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. Systems for managing complaints were in place, so any lessons would be learnt.

People and their families told us the registered manager and senior staff were approachable and were positive about the way the home was run. The registered manager had introduced changes to benefit people living at the home. The registered manager checked the quality of the care provided and people and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback on the care provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 4 May 2017

The service was safe.

People were assisted to take their medicines safely.

People had risks to their safety and well-being well managed.

There were enough staff available to care for people.



Updated 4 May 2017

The service was effective.

People received care from staff who had the opportunity to develop their skills further.

Where people required support from staff to make their own decisions, this was provided in ways which promoted people's rights and equality.

People were encouraged to have enough to eat and drink and to see health professionals so they remained well.



Updated 4 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had built caring relationships with people who were encouraged to decide how they wanted their day to day care to be given.

People lived in a home where staff took action to make them feel valued.

Staff cared for people so their rights to dignity and privacy were promoted.



Updated 4 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People decided what care they wanted, with support from relatives or staff where this was appropriate.

Staff shared information so people's changing needs were met.

People and their relatives were confident if they raised any concerns or complaints staff would take action to address them.



Updated 4 May 2017

The service was well-led.

People were positive about the way the home was managed.

Staff were supported to understand how they were expected to care for people.

There were checks on the quality of care provided and plans were in place to develop the service further.