Sleaford Manor Care Home

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

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service to ensure appropriate support was in place. Staff told us assessments were used as a starting point and were developed further as they got to know people and understood their individual needs.

Staff worked together to review care and ensure it reflected people’s current needs. This included sharing information across the team and updating care plans to ensure people received the right level of support.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how these changed over time and were able to describe how care was adapted to ensure it remained effective.

The provider planned and delivered care in a person-centred way, ensuring people were involved in decisions about their care and support. Care was delivered in line with current legislation, good practice guidance and people’s individual preferences.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in care planning to ensure preferences, wishes and life histories were understood and reflected. Records showed care plans were regularly reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed. For example, one person who had previously required support from two staff had received physiotherapy, and their care records demonstrated improved mobility and a reduced level of support.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and were able to describe how care was provided in line with individual preferences. This reflected the information recorded in care plans and what people told us.

Nationally recognised tools were used to monitor people’s health needs. For example, people were weighed regularly and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to support monitoring and maintain oversight of risks associated with weight and nutrition.

The provider worked effectively with a range of teams and services to ensure people received personalised, coordinated and seamless care. We saw evidence of staff working in partnership with GPs, district nurses and specialist healthcare professionals, including the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team and community mental health services.

An external healthcare professional told us they visited the service weekly to carry out tasks such as blood tests and dementia reviews and said there was “good communication and joint working with staff and GPs.” They described staff as responsive to guidance and noted the service had developed positively, with consistent staffing and effective handovers.

When people moved between services, such as hospital admissions, key information from care plans was shared to ensure continuity of care and staff consistently provided clear feedback to support ongoing care. This collaborative approach ensured people experienced coordinated care, with effective information sharing reducing delays and supporting positive outcomes.

Staff worked with people to encourage them to maintain their abilities and make decisions about their day-to-day lives.

People were supported to access healthcare services and staff took prompt action when changes in health were identified. For example, one person told us they had begun to lose sight in one eye. Staff responded quickly by contacting their GP and arranging a hospital referral, which resulted in a diagnosis and ongoing treatment.

Staff also worked in partnership with other professionals to support positive outcomes. For example, one person’s mobility had improved following input from the physiotherapy team, and care records showed they required reduced support as a result. This proactive and person-centred approach helped people maintain their independence and supported improved health and wellbeing outcomes.

The provider regularly reviewed people’s care and treatment to ensure it remained effective and met their needs. For example, people’s weights were regularly monitored and where weight loss was identified, staff responded promptly by sharing information with the wider team, including kitchen staff, to provide fortified diets.

Care plans contained detailed, person-centred guidance to support staff in meeting individuals’ nutritional needs. People also described the support they received, with one person telling us staff regularly came to their room to offer and encourage drinks and snacks.

This demonstrated how monitoring was used proactively to identify risks and take coordinated action, supporting consistent care and positive outcomes for people.

The provider ensured people were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment in line with their rights around consent. Care was delivered in a person-centred way, with staff consistently seeking consent and respecting people’s choices.

People told us staff asked for their permission before providing care. One person said staff always checked they were happy for them to support them. We also observed staff routinely asking people if they were comfortable and willing to receive care.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of gaining consent. One staff member described how they respected a person’s decision to decline personal care when they were tired following a full day out the day before, ensuring this was recorded and that care was re-offered at a more appropriate time.

Records showed people’s mental capacity had been assessed where required, and where people lacked capacity, best interest decisions had been made in line with relevant legislation.

This approach ensured people’s rights were respected and supported them to remain in control of their care and treatment.