- Care home
Saxon Manor Care Home
This care home is run by two companies: Willowbrook Healthcare Limited and Artisan Care Godmanchester Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.
Report from 11 March 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 25 March 2025.
The assessment was completed in response to concerns we had received about the service. The service is a residential care home for up to 66 people. At the time of assessment there were 55 older people living at the home. This service is run by 2 registered providers who are dual-registered. This means both providers are responsible for service delivery at the location.
The providers demonstrated a strong commitment to safety through proactive investigations, staff engagement, and collaboration with stakeholders. People felt safe, and staff were confident raising concerns, which led to meaningful changes. Care systems supported smooth transitions and continuity. Staff were well-trained and appropriately resourced. Infection control procedures were effective, and the premises were well-maintained. Medication management was robust, with regular audits and competency checks. Overall, the providers maintained a safe and responsive care environment, though some improvements were needed in care documentation and evacuation planning.
The service assessed people’s care needs thoroughly before and during their time living at the service, including hospital readmissions. Electronic care plans and recognised tools like MUST supported this process. Staff collaborated effectively with families and healthcare professionals, ensuring timely medical support and involving people in care planning. The providers prioritised wellbeing, independence, and nutrition through proactive monitoring and referrals. Assessments under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were generally good, although quality varied. Staff demonstrated respectful, person-centred care and understanding of least restrictive practices. Overall, the approach promoted personalised support and safeguarded people’s health, choice, and dignity.
Staff provided respectful, culturally aware care, showing genuine kindness and attentiveness to people's dignity, privacy, and religious preferences. Communication needs were well understood, with assistive technology supporting those with sight and hearing loss. While personal interests and aspirations were not always addressed, efforts were underway to improve activity provision. Staff were readily available, responded quickly, and maintained positive relationships. Concerns were addressed, and healthcare referrals were made promptly. Staff felt supported in their roles, with regular supervisions and future access to wellbeing resources. Some care notes lacked respectful language, which the providers committed to resolving. Overall, the environment reflected compassion and teamwork.
Care records were inconsistent and contained insufficient detail, especially in personal histories and daily logs. Despite some thoughtful entries, conflicting information undermined care planning. Staff used an electronic system to document interventions and health professional input. Communication needs were well-assessed, and inclusive formats were available. Residents’ views were actively sought through meetings and a Resident’s Ambassador. Surveys informed action plans, with most staff-related actions completed. Staff demonstrated strong understanding of individual needs and ensured swift health referrals. End-of-life care plans existed but lacked personal detail. Staff were trained and committed to providing compassionate end-of-life support.
The provider implemented a vision strategy rooted in transparency, equality, and inclusion, aiming to support staff with protected characteristics and ensure fair treatment and care. Leadership was visible and valued, with the Registered Manager and Deputy Manager fostering teamwork through supervision and wellbeing support. Staff felt empowered to speak up and reported high morale and mutual respect. Although quality audits missed issues in care records, corrective action and training were promised. Collaborative efforts with healthcare partners were effective, and continuous improvement was evident, including enhanced activities and staff education through external experts, demonstrating commitment to person-centred care and service development.
People's experience of this service
During the assessment, we received feedback from 7 people who used the service and 5 relatives. People told us they felt safe living in the home and staff were trained in supporting people in a safe way. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff and told us they were caring, with 2 people saying staff were, “Obliging.” Relatives reported staff took time to get to know their family member’s care needs as well as their likes and dislikes. Both people and their relatives felt able to raise any concerns and provide feedback, and there were various ways they could do this and feel listened to. Whilst people reported being given choice and independence, assessments relating to people’s capacity lacked detail.
We received feedback that activity provision could be better. One person told us they did not know what activities were scheduled for the week. A relative said, “More activities [Family member] enjoys would be good- she doesn’t like games, she likes drawing. However, others we spoke with were happy with what was on offer. One relative explained, “[Family member] has her hair done every week, love it, before it was difficult, hairdresser [Hairdresser’s name] so lovely, gets a wash and blow dry.” A second relative told us how their family member enjoyed attending the gardening club.
People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care. One relative told us, “Had a couple of meetings with [Registered Manager], we went through things [Family member] needed…completed document, staff really listened, was lovely, asked about her life, asked all sorts of things about her life, took down lots of information…” However, we found people’s care records lacked detail about their life stories and their wishes and preferences in relation to their care and support, for example, how people would like to be cared for at the end of their life.