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

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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

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.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and built positive, respectful relationships with people and those close to them. A relative said, “They care, which is what the home should be about, they provide the looking after like we would do at home. [Relative] is happy and that’s important, and [relative] never asks to come home anymore.”

Staff took time to get to know people, including their preferences, backgrounds and what mattered to them. Staff listened to people and spoke with them in a respectful and supportive way. They responded to emotional needs with reassurance and understanding, especially when people felt anxious or unwell. People said staff were caring and made them feel valued. A relative said, “The thing I appreciate, is that they understand the emotional complexity of the situation. My emotions, my [relative’s] and the family complexities. They have compassion and sympathy for that.” We observed kind, thoughtful and dignified interactions throughout both site visits.

Staff also treated colleagues, visitors and professionals with respect, which supported a positive and cooperative atmosphere.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique background including protected characteristics.

Staff knew people well and understood their personal histories and what mattered to them. They used this knowledge to provide care that was respectful and tailored to each person. For example, we saw staff recognised how past bad experiences may have an effect on people’s wellbeing. They provided sensitive and reassuring care during periods of distress.

Staff also recognised people’s cultural needs in relation to language and diet. They took steps to reflect these in daily support. A person said, “They know me and do what I need - all the little fiddly bits about me.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. We saw clear improvements in engagement since our last assessment. However, more work was needed to ensure people always had enough to do that was meaningful to them.

In the main building, lifestyle staff organised a wide range of activities and completed life history work to understand what mattered to people. However, some people and relatives said there were times with little to do. A person said, “There is not usually a lot to do here” and “It gets a bit lonely.” A relative said, “I wish they could get them out more often rather than sitting around all day.” However, others described positive experiences. A relative said, “[Relative] likes the pets, music sessions, church services, having [their] nails done, seasonal celebrations, dressing up. There is always something going on in the film room.”

On our first visit, there were no lifestyle staff on duty. We observed people had little to do and some told us they felt bored. On our second visit, lifestyle staff were present and had planned activities including exercises, films, music and VE Day celebrations. We identified a gap between planned activities and everyday opportunities for meaningful occupation, and between the roles of lifestyle and care staff in supporting this. The manager recognised this and had started to develop staff understanding that meaningful occupation is part of everyone’s role. Staff engagement with people had improved with many warm and friendly interactions observed.

People said they were supported to maintain their independence. A person told us they were supported to travel independently to visit a relative living nearby. In the ABI unit, people were supported to follow an individual therapy programme designed to promote their recovery. This included sessions with occupational therapists and physiotherapists. They also had access to a kitchen to help rebuild daily living skills before returning home. People told us the support in this unit was excellent. A person said, “They have made me feel better in myself. I am now working towards being independent again so I can get home."

Staff listened to people and responded to their needs, views and wishes in a timely way. They took time to observe people and understand how they communicated, including non‑verbal signs of discomfort or distress. Staff recognised when people needed support and acted quickly to reduce anxiety, pain or concern.

Staff knew people well and could anticipate their needs, which helped prevent avoidable distress. They offered reassurance and support when people felt unsettled and responded calmly and appropriately. Staff understood how to adjust their approach to meet people’s individual needs.

Most people and their relatives said staff listened to them and helped when needed although a small number were less positive. A person said “The care is brilliant. Staff go above and beyond. When I press the button, they are here immediately.” However, another relative told us, “They don’t always try a different way when [relative] refuses. They just give up and record [they] refused.” We observed staff respond promptly when people asked for help. They checked people’s wellbeing regularly and answered call bells quickly. We also saw staff take time to support people and trying different approaches when someone initially refused care.

Staff escalated concerns where required and worked with others to ensure people’s needs were met. Overall, people received responsive care from staff who were attentive, respectful and focused on their comfort and wellbeing.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff said they felt valued and supported by managers and colleagues. They had opportunities to raise concerns, share feedback and suggest improvements. Managers listened and responded appropriately.

Most staff felt their workload was manageable. Access to supervision meetings was improving and staff felt they had ongoing support in their roles. They said they could approach managers if they needed help, including when they were feeling stressed or under pressure. Many staff spoke positively about the new manager. They described them as supportive, approachable and responsive to issues.

Policies and processes were in place to support staff wellbeing and safety. As a result, staff were able to deliver consistent, compassionate care, and people benefited from a stable and well supported staff team.