Archived: Manor Park 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

Effective – 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The pre-assessment process ensured people’s needs were known and documented before coming into the service. Risk assessments and care plans were reflective of people’s needs and these were very detailed for most people.

The majority of people and relatives told us their needs had been discussed with them and they confirmed the information shared was captured in their care records. One relative told us they were confident the home had enough information about their loved one and their care plan was kept up to date.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Records showed some nationally recognised assessment tools were in use to assess people’s needs and risks. People’s preferences, including what was important and mattered most to them, were known by staff and utilised in the care delivery. The kitchen staff were knowledgeable about people’s nutritional needs, and individual risk assessments were in place. The provider understood best practice guidelines for providing evidence-based care and agreed to improve their monitoring in relation to the recording of pressure care and fluid intake.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff demonstrated good teamwork and there were fewer agency staff, with more regular staff working together. Staff knew people well and this helped ensure continuity of care. Handover meetings were conducted with good levels of detail so information about people’s current needs were passed over effectively between shift changes. Appropriate referrals were made to other services to further support people’s needs where necessary.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People had access to health professionals when needed, for example, the GP and dietitian. Professional advice was documented in people’s records to support their health needs.

Improvements had been made since the last inspection, so people had more choice and control about where they spent their time. Where people remained in bed, the nursing staff were able to discuss the clinical need for this. People were appropriately dressed for the day and they enjoyed increased time in communal areas where possible, and in line with their preferences. Outside areas were used appropriately and people were seen to enjoy access to the garden.

Staff supported people frequently with drinks throughout the day and meal choices were available to support individual nutritional needs and appetites. Staff explained the menu individually to people and assisted them patiently. People gave mixed feedback about the meals. One person said, "The food is good. There are choices each day." Another person said, "The food is on and off. Sometimes it is really nice, sometimes it is a quick 'make do'. We get enough cups of tea and drinks through the day."

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were inconsistencies in relation to monitoring people’s pressure care. Some relatives told us they were not assured their loved ones were repositioned as they should be. One relative said, “Repositioning isn't happening as often as it should. Some days when I get here, [my relative is] in all sorts of bad positions and I don't know how long they have been like that.” We found mattress settings on the first day of the assessment did not accurately correspond with people’s weight and there were gaps in some repositioning records. Records of people’s fluid intake were not consistently monitored. Although we found no evidence of harm, there were weaknesses in the systems and processes for monitoring, which meant people were at increased risk. The provider gave assurances they would act on the concerns raised.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Mental capacity assessments were in place and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were appropriately managed. Staff sought consent from people before they offered any support and they understood the ways in which people communicated their consent. Staff consistently knocked on people’s doors before entering their rooms and spoke with them before offering any support.