Martlet 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff consistently demonstrated a caring, person‑centred approach and built positive, trusting relationships with people and their relatives.

We observed staff interacting with people in a calm, respectful and empathetic way. During a medicines round, a team leader took time to listen to a person who was upset, responded with patience and empathy, and reassured them before continuing with their duties. The interaction was unhurried and focused on the person’s emotional wellbeing as well as their physical needs.

Staff spoke kindly and positively about the people they supported. They explained what they were doing, sought consent and respected people’s privacy throughout care delivery. This approach was confirmed by the people and family members we spoke with. A person told us, “The staff are lovely and they know just what I need. A family member said, “I want to tell you to know how wonderful the staff are, they have endless patience and they work a 12 hour shift, are always so caring and know who I am and know where Mum is, they have done so much for her, they never seem rushed and just spend their time with people.”

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were supported by regular staff who used what they knew about their backgrounds, preferences, beliefs and routines to guide the care and support they provided. People were encouraged to share what was important to them, and staff responded consistently. Staff adapted care to changing needs and preferences and this was reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments which were person-centred and reviewed regularly. A staff member said, “People here are all very different. We treat them as individuals as I would want if I was in same position.”

People were supported as individuals. Bedrooms reflected people’s personalities, with personal items, photographs and memory boxes chosen by people to reflect their interests and life histories. Lunchtime observations showed staff offering choice, adapting support and respecting people’s decisions about when and how they ate. People who chose not to eat at set mealtimes were still included socially and supported to eat later in line with their wishes.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and family members told us the service involved them in developing care plans that reflected their choices and preferences. Staff offered choices in everyday activities and worked in partnership with people to ensure the support they provided met their needs.

We observed a resident’s meeting where people were asked about their views on a range of issues. They identified opinions and preferences in relation to, for example, menus and activities. They were advised these would be used to plan further development within the service.

People we spoke with told us they were supported to participate in activities of their choice. They described how staff supported this. One person said, “I can’t fault the staff. They are lovely. This isn’t the same as being at my own home, but it’s very good and I do get out quite a bit.”

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were observed to be available and responsive to people’s needs in the communal areas of the home. They supported people discreetly where they required immediate personal care.

We noted people’s call bell alarms were responded to quickly. The provider maintained an electronic record of call bell time responses and had addressed any significant delays with staff. Systems were in place to check on individual people on an hourly basis. Where people did not wish this, for example, hourly checks at night, this was discussed with them and recorded their care records.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt supported and valued. They appreciated the training and supervision they received which helped them to undertake their roles effectively. A staff member described the support they had received to move up to a more senior position. They told us they appreciated this and had valued the opportunity to participate in qualification training to further develop them in their role.

Staff told us they did not have to wait for a formal meeting to discuss their well-being or any concerns they might have about their work. They told us they had an ‘on-call’ system they could use if a manager was not at the home.

The provider was able to consider flexible working arrangements provided they met the needs of the people they supported. The registered manager told us they had supported staff to return to work by offering a different role. Some staff who had left were employed as bank workers that reduced the need for the service to use agency workers.