Middleton Manor Care Centre

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Although some care plans contained person-centred information, they were not always followed or accessible to all staff. There was a high use of agency staff who were not always familiar with the needs of the people they were supporting, and they did not all have access to electronic care plans. A staff member told us, “Our own staff do know the preferences of the residents, but agency staff don't as we are now using a different agency group.” A relative told us, “[Person’s name] wears glasses and agency staff aren’t necessarily aware, so they don’t put them on him and the result is he can’t read his newspaper, which he enjoys.”

One relative we spoke with told us there was regularly other people’s clothes in his family member’s wardrobe. They told us, “There have been issues with the laundry with lots of things going missing and the issue doesn’t seem to get resolved.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People did not always get consistent support. The high use of agency staff identified at our last assessment had continued. One relative told us, “The impact of agency staff has not been positive.”

Input from external professionals had not always been successfully arranged. Referral forms contained insufficient information which had the potential to delay treatment. People’s records had not always been updated when referrals had been made.

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

Information on the accessible information standard was available in the home with details of how to request information in other formats.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Resident and relative surveys had been completed May 2025. Feedback included concerns around ‘lack of activities for residents’ and ‘lots of staff leaving and constant change.’ There had been insufficient action taken to address these issues and the same concerns were identified at this assessment.

The providers complaint log showed 4 complaints had been received since November 2025. Whilst there was a process for responding to formal complaints, more minor concerns were not consistently logged. This meant we could not be assured the provider had taken appropriate action or had good oversight of emerging trends in order to address them.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives about communication. A relative told us, “I have struggled with the communication, catch up calls never happened.”

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

People had equal access to care and support. Although the home was over 2 floors there was a lift available to ensure accessibility to all areas. Moving and handling equipment was available to ensure those people who required it could access care and support when they needed it.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed. Some relatives told us they felt people’s needs were understood and met, whilst others did not share this view and said their family member did not always receive the right support. Care records were not always updated to reflect people’s current individual needs. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to tailor care appropriately.

Some areas of the home had dementia friendly signage to make identification of rooms such as bathrooms and toilets easier for people. This was not consistent throughout the home meaning people living in some areas of the home had less support to be independent.

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.

Although nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment, care plans documented people’s wishes and preferences, including cultural needs and traditions. We received positive feedback from a visiting professional who told us, “The staff seem very proactive to end of life care.”