Manor Support and Housing Limited Also known as Koala House Annex

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 64 (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 placed people at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment.

People’s care records contained personalised and detailed information about them as individuals, their choices and how they preferred their care to be delivered. One person also told us how staff provided care in a person-centred way. One person told us, “They make me peppermint tea when I feel sick and dizzy and it helps and soothes.” And “[Staff] all know I am anti-religious so there is no talk of religion.” Care notes demonstrated staff worked with people to promote their independence and strengths when delivering care and treatment.
 

The provider understood people's health and care needs and worked with local services to support choice, continuity and joined-up care. One person told us their relatives were involved in their care alongside the provider. One person said, “They work well with the pharmacy, and they make appointments for me sometimes because I don’t like talking on the phone.”

People’s care records contained information about their local services and healthcare professional contacts. Staff told us they followed people’s choice and preferences when working with other professionals. For example, one person said, “Everyone is registered with the same GP. The people we are supporting have capacity we can escort them to appointments. Sometimes we sit in with them, but they sometimes will go in on their own. The person decides if we go in.”

Relatives told us the service worked well with partnership services. One person said, “[Provider] contact the GP and pharmacy to ensure continuity of care.”
 

One person told us the provider communicated with them in ways that met their individual needs and preferences and involved them in reviewing their care and support. One person told us the provider supported and included them in reviewing their care plans every 3 months. This included making any changes and comments where required.

One person told us the provider communicated in a way which was best for their needs and preferences. Care plans contained relevant information about people’s communication needs.
 

The provider had effective systems to gather feedback from people and use this to drive improvement.

People told us they were involved in 3 monthly care plan reviews with staff.Relatives told us they were involved in reviews. One person said, “There are good links with GP, pharmacy, care coordinator and social worker [they] are invited to and attend reviews.However, one person told us, “We have had 1 residents meeting since I have been here. The doorbell has not worked properly, and I missed the delivery of my [medicine] from the hospital."
 

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider told us the service was always accessible for people. The registered manager said, “We have a dedicated phone line, everyone knows it. We alternate that between myself and [staff] and we are close by. We will be here within 5 minutes.” However, one person told us the phone was not always answered quickly, and they were not able to contact staff when they needed support.

One person also told us they did not receive care in line with their funding and/or what they are paying. One person said, “I’m allocated 6 hours 1:1 a day but I didn’t get it because there was only 1 staff in the house, and they couldn’t leave that house alone. I only started getting it from yesterday, they would only come for certain hours in the evening, it was more like domiciliary care.” The provider did not demonstrate how they monitored this and ensured care was delivered in line with funding and/or payment.
 

People did not always feel empowered to share their views and experiences or raise concerns about their care and support.

One person told us they did not feel empowered or encouraged by the manager to give their views to ensure their human rights were protected and respected. One person also told us they were not sure who they could raise concerns to.

The provider had equality and diversity policies in place which promoted inclusive practice and helped ensure people did not experience unequal treatment in how their care and support were delivered.
 

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

People’s care records contained information about their future goals and aspirations. Staff we spoke to were able to tell us about people’s goals and how they had seen people achieve those.
At the time of the assessment, no one was receiving end-of-life care. The provider had not identified a need for staff to complete end-of-life training.