Walton Manor Residential and Nursing 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 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.  

This service scored 62 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We identified issues with the accurate assessment and recording of people’s needs. We found some important assessments, such as oral health checks were overdue or incomplete. Staff confirmed risk assessments were informative and updated monthly or when changes occur. Staff reported active involvement in care planning which helped them understand people better, although some expressed a desire for more time to read these documents. One member of staff said when we asked them about time to read assessments and care plans, “Not as much as would like but care plans are always made available.” Relatives generally felt informed and involved in care reviews, with one stating, “We get invited to reviews and are kept up to date.” However, other comments included, “Communication is inconsistent, we are sometimes not consulted,” “I don’t think [Name] is involved very much when assessing their needs” and “They are only involved in assessments and support to a limited degree."

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We observed people had access to nutritious meals that reflected their preferences. Staff we spoke with demonstrated understanding of relevant training, including nutrition and medical conditions. One staff member shared, “We learned in depth about SALT [Speech and Language Therapy], diabetes and epilepsy.” However, some relatives raised concerns about the quality of food, with one commenting, “The food is poor, not very healthy, lacks vegetables, and is boring and bland.” Concerns were also expressed about staff not consistently following clinical guidance. For example, when reviewing repositioning charts, we found gaps in recording, with staff not always documenting when and how a person had been supported to change position. This made it unclear whether care was being delivered and recorded accurately. Leaders acknowledged ongoing challenges in consistently recording care interventions, such as repositioning, and confirmed improvements in documentation are a current priority. The provider has highlighted this as an area of focus, and it remains a key action within the home’s development plan.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff knew the people they were supporting very well. There were effective communication procedures in place via daily handovers. This ensured staff were consistently informed and enabled safe, responsive care. A staff member noted, “Care plans and handovers keep us up to date. Everyone knows the residents well.” Most relatives we spoke with confirmed this positive collaboration. Comments from relatives included, “They work together really well” and “I think teamwork is something Walton Manor does well.” While the majority of feedback was positive, a small number of staff and relatives told us that communication and continuity could occasionally be affected by staff turnover and the use of agency staff. One relative explained, “Sometimes it’s hard for [Name] to build relationships when staff change so often.”  

The provider actively supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, promoting independence, choice, and control. Staff encouraged healthier lifestyles and aimed to reduce future care needs where possible.  People and relatives spoke positively about their involvement in care planning, with one relative commenting, “They listen to us. The care plan is regularly audited.” One person told us, “I am very content here and am supported to maintain my independence very much.” Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support and healthcare needs and provided informed support. One staff member shared, “We try and encourage all the residents to be as independent as possible.” The home manager told us, “One person didn’t want a shower, so we supported them in their preferred way and now they are up and engaging with friends in the lounge.” Some people benefited from personalised outings and activities that supported their wellbeing and connection with the wider community. One relative told us, “The carers take [Name] out for nails and hair done. They sit with them and chat.”  

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Daily handovers ensured timely updates and shared learning about people’s progress and any concerns.  Relatives expressed confidence in staff responsiveness. One relative said, “If something happens, they [staff] say what they are going to do about it.” Another relative told us, “The staff are very proactive.” However, we found some people’s care plans and risk assessments were not always being updated accordingly.    

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Consent to care was recorded clearly within people’s care records. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. Records included assessments of people’s capacity, and best interest decisions where required. Staff demonstrated understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. One member of staff said, “It is designed to protect people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions about care and treatment, but individuals should still be able to make choices.” All staff stressed the importance of involving people and their relatives in decisions. Allocated key workers helped to represent people’s’ wishes. Relatives and people told us they felt respected and involved. Leaders reported ongoing Mental Capacity Act training and use of communication aids and acknowledged embedding these practices consistently remains a priority.