Manton Heights Care Centre Also known as Ranc Care Homes Limited

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

We assessed 1 quality statement in the caring key question and found areas of concern and good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based from the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Improvements were needed in how staff documented people being offered choices and how their independence was promoted. People’s experiences of being involved in activities and receiving interaction were mixed. However, relatives felt positive about the range of activities available. People were able to maintain relationships and receive visitors without restriction.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We received mixed feedback about people’s experiences with staff interaction and opportunities to participate in activities. A person told us they were “very bored” as they had previously been very active before moving to the home. Another person who was cared for in bed said, “They only come to me with meals; they don’t come and talk with me.” However, people also told us, "What I like about this place is that I can choose whatever I want to do. I have plenty of everyday choices, and that is what I like." Another person said, “Anything I want, any problem I have, staff will discuss with me and offer options. If they can’t help immediately, they will find the way or talk to other people who might help.” Relatives gave us positive feedback about activities people were able to take part in. For example, relatives said, “I like the physical activities they do there.” And, “They are very good in this respect. I get a call or text for the amenities and their entertainment is very good. People using the ABI unit had access to a range of activities, including a crafts room, exercise equipment and a kitchen. We saw evidence of goals being planned with people to support them with their rehabilitation programmes. There was evidence of people being able to manage and be involved in aspects of their care independently. A person said, “I book my hairdresser every other week, and she comes to my room. I feel more relaxed to be washed here. I do see the GP when I need. There was some new medications and changes, so I will see them again soon. A chiropodist is also coming.” People and relatives also confirmed visits were able to take place without restriction.

The provider told us our observations on the first day had not been representative of the usual service people received with activities due to unforeseen staff circumstances. They sent us evidence of people taking part in activities, recent celebrations and positive online reviews they received. Staff told us activities were available for people to participate in, but people were not always interested in joining in. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of people’s choice and independence being promoted.

We observed mixed findings in relation to people being able to take part in activities. Although the provider had dedicated activities staff, we observed on the first day of our inspection that activities did not take place across all units. Furthermore, we observed two people became frustrated as they had been waiting in a communal corridor for an extended period to take part in a 'Garden Walks' activity while holding their coats. Staff did not promptly support them when they asked what time the activity was meant to start and who had organised the activity. When the activity did commence, it lasted approximately 10 mins. The 2 individuals were dissatisfied by this and made comments like, "We've been sitting down here for ages," And, referring to the activity, "Nice of you to offer. We can do that on our own." During our third site visit, in the morning, some people were entertained by a live singer and in the afternoon, some people took part in intergenerational activities involving children from a local nursery. However, these activities were on particular units and not accessible to all. We observed people cared for in their bedrooms could benefit from more interaction.

People's daily records did not evidence people were always being given choices related to their care, opportunities to take part in activities or how they felt that day. As stated in other parts of this report, we identified concerns relating to people’s care planning and people being involved. This meant improvements were needed to systems and processes to promote people’s independence, choice, control and their individual needs being met.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.