Compton Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always supported to experience care that consistently reflected their preferences, independence and choices.
 

This service scored 60 (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 generally treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.
Most people gave positive feedback about their experiences of care. One person told us, “The staff know me well and look after me.” This reflected that staff had developed positive relationships with people and understood their needs and preferences. During the inspection, we observed staff interacting with people in a kind and respectful way. Staff spoke to people calmly, offered reassurance and took time to engage with them, which supported people’s emotional wellbeing.
Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s preferences and communicated with them in a respectful manner. Interactions were generally person-centred, and people appeared comfortable in the presence of staff. These observations showed that many staff had a caring approach and were able to build trusting relationships with people.
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure care and support consistently reflected people’s needs and preferences. Staff and leaders did not consistently ensure care planning systems captured and reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and personal histories.
Care plans did not always clearly reflect people’s needs, preferences or current guidance. Staff did not consistently maintain accurate and up-to-date records, which reduced assurance that all staff, particularly new or unfamiliar staff, had access to clear information to deliver personalised care.
In some care plans, there was limited recorded information about people’s wider personal needs, such as their aspirations, backgrounds or individual goals. This did not reflect the knowledge staff demonstrated in practice, but it meant this information was not consistently documented or shared across the team. As a result, there was a risk that care delivery could vary depending on which staff were on duty.
However, people and relatives told us that staff knew them well and understood their day-to-day needs. Staff described people’s preferences and routines, and we observed examples of personalised care. People’s rooms reflected their preferences, and staff respected cultural needs, including supporting preferred food choices.
Staff also supported people to maintain their individual interests. For example, one person who enjoyed playing the piano had been supported to have a piano in their room and attend church. This demonstrated staff were able to support people’s identity and interests in practice.
Following feedback, leaders began reviewing and updating care plans to include more personalised information. However, these improvements were not yet embedded at the time of inspection.
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, choice and control over their care and daily lives. Staff and leaders did not consistently ensure people were supported to make meaningful choices or maintain independence.
Staff did not consistently record how they supported people’s preferences, routines and choices. Staff did not consistently record or review how people’s independence was promoted, which reduced assurance that this was supported in a structured and consistent way.
Some people told us they would like more opportunities to go out into the community, which showed their independence and social choices were not always fully supported. This limited people’s ability to make decisions about how they spent their time and engage with the wider community.
Staff told us they did not always have enough time to fully promote independence, which meant care could become task-focused. This reduced opportunities for people to make meaningful choices or do things for themselves.
However, some people were supported to maintain aspects of their independence, and staff encouraged people to remain active. We observed people being offered choices in day-to-day care, particularly around food and drink, and people could choose from the menu and change their mind. This showed some flexibility and support for choice in practice, but this was not consistent across the service.
 

The provider generally listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes and staff usually responded in the moment to minimise discomfort or distress, although this was not always consistent.
During the inspection, we observed staff responding to people in a caring and timely way. Staff engaged with people, offered reassurance and provided support when needed. One person told us, “when called staff come quickly,” and another said, “when I am upset or uncomfortable, staff come straight away.” This showed staff usually responded promptly and understood people’s needs. Staff knew people well and were able to recognise and respond to their needs, which helped to reduce the risk of discomfort or distress.
However, there were some inconsistencies. We observed a delay in people receiving meals on one occasion, which meant people were not supported at their preferred time. Although this was addressed when raised, this showed responsiveness was not always consistent in practice.
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
Some staff feedback highlighted significant concerns about the working environment and culture. Some staff told us they did not feel able to speak openly or raise concerns. One staff member said, “I feel pressured not to say anything bad about the home.” This showed staff did not feel safe or able to speak openly.
Staff described the impact this had on their wellbeing. One staff member said, “The behaviour from some senior leaders has an impact on my mental health.” Other feedback described inconsistency in how staff were treated and concerns about fairness, which contributed to stress and low morale within the team. Staff had access to external mental health support numbers, but there was no evidence of staff up take on this provision.
Staff also raised concerns about how senior leaders supported them in their roles. Some reported completing mandatory training in their own time without pay or time off in lieu, which negatively affected morale and wellbeing. Although the provider acknowledged this and planned to address it, this had not been fully resolved at the time of inspection.
However, some staff described positive peer support and teamwork, and strong support from the Registered Manager. This showed that support at service level was present, but this was not consistent across the wider leadership structure.