The Manor House Roundhay

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed and clearly captured each person’s needs, preferences, and choices. Staff were familiar with the information within these plans and were able to describe how people preferred to be supported, demonstrating that they knew people well.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in developing and reviewing care plans and had been asked about their likes, dislikes, and what was important to them. One person told us, ‘The care plan was put in place and staff went over everything with me.’

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager told us they worked closely with the GP, who supported the service by referring people to relevant healthcare professionals when required. Care records showed clear evidence of visits from healthcare professionals and demonstrated that care plans were reviewed and updated in line with their advice.

External professionals provided positive feedback about the service. One professional told us, ‘If we leave a plan of care, I am confident staff would follow it. If there are any issues, they would call.’”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their relatives were kept informed about their care and any changes that occurred. One relative told us, “They have talked to me, and the doctor here rang me to discuss things.”

Policies were in place that reflected current best practice guidance, ensuring staff had access to up to- date- information to support people appropriately.

The manager explained that information was available in accessible formats to meet people’s diverse needs. For example, newsletters were available in larger print. Although information in other languages was not required at the time of the assessment, it was available if needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives were routinely asked for their views through satisfaction surveys, and feedback was used to inform improvements. The provider also held regular residents’ meetings, providing opportunities for people to share their experiences, raise any issues, and contribute to decisions about the home.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, GPs and other healthcare partners visited the service routinely to review people’s health needs and provide ongoing clinical oversight.

Relatives told us they were kept well informed about any changes in their family member’s health and wellbeing, including being notified of any incidents or accidents. One relative commented, “They ring me and communication is very good.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s care plans included detailed information about what mattered to them, such as their religious beliefs and the relationships that were important in their lives. We found the provider worked with people to ensure these needs were respected and met. For example, a significant number of people living at the service were Jewish, and we were told that members of the local Jewish community visited regularly to offer support and maintain cultural connections.

Care and support were delivered in a person-centred way that respected people’s differences, preferences, and choices. Clear guidance was available for staff to help them understand how people wished to be supported, and this was reviewed and updated when required. For example, the menu was adapted to ensure people’s cultural, religious, and medical needs were appropriately met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care plans were thorough and clearly demonstrated meaningful involvement from the person. People’s wishes were central to the planning process, and feedback was actively sought to ensure plans reflected what mattered most to them, including any advance care decisions.

Where people were not ready to discuss end of life arrangements, this choice was respected, sensitively supported, and reviewed over time in line with the person’s preferences.