Hallmark Midford Manor Luxury Care Home

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 registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them. Information was gathered about people’s likes, dislikes, preference, risks, and communication requirements before they moved into the service. Some staff noted that some of the more personalised information about people’s culture and hobbies were not always available upon admission, but this was quickly gathered from the person which helped staff understand people better and this helped people feel more settled and comfortable when they came into the service. Regular reviews of people’s assessed needs were being completed.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. There was evidence of people’s nutrition and hydration needs being assessed. People’s weight was monitored, and concerns were escalated to professionals. We saw many people receiving specialised drinks to support them to maintain or gain weight where needed. Information about people’s allergies and food requirements were displayed on a large board in the kitchen area for staff to follow. The service had evidence-based information embedded into their care planning system. For example, we saw evidence of peoples diagnosed conditions in their care plans with guidance for staff to follow in line with national evidence-based guidance.

However, some people, relatives and staff commented about the quality of the food in the service and told us, “Sometimes the food was cold between when it came out of the kitchen area to the food serving areas.” People said this impacted on the overall dining experience for people living in the service. The provider told us they had acted on feedback from people about the quality of the food and the most recent feedback from people and their relatives had been more positive. They were also waiting for a recently recruited hospitality manager to commence in their role so they could move forward with their plans to provide more quality food to people living in the service.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. People told us they had access to a variety of different services and there was evidence of regular communication with professionals on behalf of people to ensure their needs were being met. For example, we viewed communication with professionals such as pharmacies, district nurses and GPs. The provider had access to an on-site physiotherapist and occupational therapist for people to access and there was regular communication between the teams. There were daily meetings between management and staff to discuss people’s needs. Partners were involved in the care planning for people living in the service and we observed a healthcare partner visiting the service on the day of the assessment to discuss an individual’s needs. Partners did not raise any concerns about the way the service worked with them.

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. People were positive about the ‘snacks’ on offer and we observed there was a relaxing/social area where people and visitors had access to free drinks and snacks throughout the day. There were meaningful activities taking place both inside and outside the service. People and their relatives all commented positively about the physical activities taking place and felt these activities kept them more mobile. We observed people accessing communal areas both inside and outside the service with family and friends. There was a dedicated gymnasium on site to support people to be more active, and this was accessed with support from the physiotherapist.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, one person’s care plan stated they were at risk of malnutrition and dehydration and needed their food and fluid intake to be monitored daily. However, we identified a lack of monitoring and recording for the person’s hydration input and output for 8 days in August 2025. We also identified a lack of recording for the persons food intake for 6 days in August. Another person’s care plan stated they required regular bowel monitoring due to their diagnosed conditions and to reduce the risk of constipation. However, daily logs of care showed there was a period of 13 days where no bowel movements had been recorded, and leaders had not identified this. The provider told us the person sometimes used the toilet independently and therefore staff would not always know if there had been a bowel movement. They have since reassessed the persons needs and amended the care plan. We identified no harm had come to these people through the lack of monitoring and recording.

However, we saw other people’s needs were being monitored in line with their care plans. The service was also using care technology to enhance productivity and outcomes. For example, an electronic system called acoustic monitoring was being used which monitored sounds from people’s rooms for potential concerns without the need for intrusive checks. The provider also had ‘tools’ in place to monitor people’s outcomes in relation to how people experienced social isolation.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff asked for their consent when they required support with personal care. For example, one person told us, “Yes they will ask for my consent, if I need help to get in and out of the shower, which normally I do.” People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed when required. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, relatives and professionals had been involved in the process where decisions were made in people’s best interest. Staff were able to describe how they asked people for consent before providing care and treatment. Consent preferences were clearly documented in people’s plans.