Manor Support and Housing Limited Also known as Koala House Annex

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

This service scored 67 (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, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider completed 3 monthly care plan reviews with people using the service. People were encouraged and supported to review the information and make any amendments or comments where required.
 

People’s care, treatment and support was not always delivered in line with relevant legislation, national standards and evidence-based good practice guidance.

Care plans were not always reflective of people’s current needs and conditions. For example, 1 person with diabetes did not have a diabetes care plan in place. As identified within the Safe section of this report, the provider did not consistently ensure care and support was delivered in line with best practice guidance for medicines management, risk management, and person-centred care. This meant there was a risk that people’s care was not tailored to their needs and preferences, and may not have been delivered in a safe, effective, or person-centred way. These issues indicated that the provider was not consistently using evidence-based tools to assess, monitor, and respond to people’s needs, which may result in risks not being appropriately identified or managed.

People’s dietary needs were clearly identified in their care plans, and staff supported people to meet these needs and preferences.
 

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.

One person told us they did not think all staff and leaders worked well together in the service. However, partnership services were positive about the communication with this service. One professional told us, “The management team has been approachable and responsive, fostering constructive partnership working and demonstrating a willingness to listen to feedback from both staff and external professionals to improve service delivery.”

Staff told us they worked well together. One person said, “I think they have great communication skills they make you understand and learn. You can learn off other staff as well it is really nice. Well organised and lead by example.”
 

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.

We reviewed people’s care records and found they worked with staff to prepare meals and complete personal care. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments. Care plans showed activities which promoted good health were encouraged. This included going out for walks. Detailed health action plans were also in place with issues identified, actions taken and outcomes listed.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always have effective systems to monitor whether care and treatment achieved consistently positive outcomes for people.

Effective systems were not always in place to review care and support. Daily notes were not regularly audited, and reviews of care did not always result in updated care plans. Therefore, we could not be assured that care was being effectively monitored or that risks were identified and addressed to improve outcomes for people. This meant there was a risk changes in people’s needs were not identified in a timely way, impacting the quality and safety of care provided.

We found staff were applying topical medicines for 1 person. However, there were no body maps or topical medicine administration record in place. This meant the provider could not assure themselves topical medicines were being monitored and applied consistently in accordance with prescribed treatment.

Care notes demonstrated staff followed up with people when they presented unwell and were committed to ensuring people’s needs and wishes were met.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

One person told us staff always asked for their consent before providing any care, support and treatment. Staff explained to us how they ensured they respected people’s space and sought their consent before attending to support them.

Care plans contained information about how people liked to be supported to make choices and decisions. This helped to make sure people were involved in decisions about their care and support.