You are here

Lathbury Manor Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 May 2018

Lathbury Manor Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to accommodate 23 older people; at the time of our inspection, there were 23 people living in there.

At our last inspection in April 2017, this service was rated overall as requires improvement. At this inspection, improvements had been made and sustained and the service is rated overall good. The inspection took place on the 23 April 2018 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care from staff that knew them and were kind, compassionate and respectful. The staff were friendly, caring and passionate about the care they delivered. People had formed positive therapeutic relationships with staff and felt they were treated as individuals.

Detailed care plans were in place, which enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences and choices. End of life wishes were discussed and plans put in place.

People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity and who demonstrated an understanding of each person’s needs. This was evident in the way staff spoke to people and the activities they engaged in with individuals. Relatives spoke positively about the care their relative received and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

Staff were appropriately recruited and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs; staffing levels were kept under review. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from any risk or harm and knew how to respond if they had any concerns.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. There was a variety of activities available for people to participate in if they wished to and family and friends were welcomed to take part in events at the home.

Staff understood the need to undertake specific assessments where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and / or their day-to-day routines. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. Development of staff knowledge and skills was encouraged.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was committed to develop the service and actively looked at ways to continuously improve the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and audits in place; action was taken to address any shortfalls.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 May 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and there were risk assessments in place to mitigate any identified risks to people.

There was sufficient staff to provide the care people needed. Recruitment practices ensured that people were safeguarded against the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

There were safe systems in place for the administration of medicines and people could be assured they were cared for by staff who understood their responsibilities to keep them safe.



Updated 10 May 2018

The service was effective.

People received support from staff that had the skills and experience to meet their needs and who received regular supervision and support.

People were involved in decisions about the way their support was delivered; staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing people�s capacity to make decisions about their care.

People had access to a healthy balanced diet and their health care needs were regularly monitored.



Updated 10 May 2018

The service was caring.

Positive relationships had developed between people and staff. People were treated with kindness and respect.

Staff maintained people's dignity and there were measures in place to ensure that people's confidentiality was protected.

People and where appropriate their families were involved in making decisions about their care and support.



Updated 10 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed before they came to stay at the home to ensure that all their individual needs could be met.

People were encouraged to maintain their interests and take part in activities.

People were confident that they could raise a concern about their care and there was written information provided on how to make a complaint.



Updated 10 May 2018

The service was well-led

There was an open and inclusive culture which focussed on providing person-centred care.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care and actions were taken whenever shortfalls were identified.

People were encouraged and enabled to give their feedback and be involved in the development of the home.