Manor Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Most people and relatives described the staff as nice and friendly and said they were kind and caring. Comments included; “The girls are nice”, “The girls do their best and they’re always helpful” and “Staff always seem kind.” We observed some kind interactions between staff and people.

However, we observed people's dignity was not always maintained. Some people looked dishevelled and unkempt and men who liked to be shaved were unshaven. Some relatives told us of ongoing concerns with their family member's personal hygiene needs not being met and them not being supported with regular showers and baths.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

There was a lack of person-centred care and individualised approach at the service. People’s strengths, abilities, aspirations and unique backgrounds were not always considered within care records. They did not always include people’s wishes, preferences, likes and dislikes. In addition, people were not always provided with an opportunity to engage in an activity that was meaningful to them and met their needs and preferences.

People did not have choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being. People did not have appropriate, person-centred, meaningful engagement or activities available to them to meet their needs.

People said they had some choice and control over their daily lives such as when they got up and went to bed. We observed some people had the opportunity to participate in activities. However, there was a lack of opportunity for many people to have purpose in their day. For example, on the nursing unit many people remained in bed all day and people who were in the lounge were placed in front of the television, often with nothing to watch, just the radio playing.

People told us they were bored and felt there was a lack of activities and opportunities to go out. Comments included, “A normal day is quite boring to be honest. But friends and family take me out which helps”, “I am not aware of any activities or entertainment that they have here” and “There are not enough activities here. It is pretty boring. The only entertainment I get is when friends and family visit.” A relative told us, “[Family member] has been stuck inside for ages. We have been waiting for a wheelchair now for months. When [family member] gets that, it might at least help them get outside.”

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff were not always attentive to people's immediate needs and did not always respond promptly. For example, we found one person in bed was very cold. They had a thin cover on their bed and the radiator in the room was cold as it had been switched off. We informed the nurse who came and took action to ensure the person was warm. However, staff had been in to the person previously and no one had picked up that the person and room were cold. We observed another person who was extremely distressed and shouting out continually for help, yet staff did not respond to their needs or take any action to alleviate the person’s distress. On several occasions, inspectors had to intervene and alert staff to people's needs.

Care records showed people’s needs were not being responded to. For example, some people who required repositioning for their skin integrity needs were not being repositioned appropriately.

There was a lack of oversight and monitoring by the provider and manager to ensure people’s needs were being responded to.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff gave mixed feedback regarding the support they received. We observed staff struggling to meet the needs of people due to insufficient staffing. Workload pressures impacted on the ability of staff to provide person-centred care. Comments from staff included, “Management don’t always listen to concerns raised about staffing levels. I can't remember the last time I had a supervision. I have noticed they have time to get you in for a meeting if you are off work though” and “I don’t feel supported. I’ve raised concerns about staffing with the manager and deputy, but nothing happened.”