Manor Farm 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

The provider was effective in supporting older people and those living with dementia. Robust monitoring systems were in place, recording the ongoing health needs of people. These identified any changes in people’s needs to enable the provider to adapt their care as required. People were given choice about the day to day care they received. Their needs were appropriately assessed, and care was planned in a way that reflected their preferences as individuals. People’s views were sought, and there was an effective system for gathering the views of others who were important in the person’s life to participate in decision making.

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 assessed people’s needs prior to admission. The process included consideration around the person’s physical needs and their preferences for things such as the food they ate. Additionally, information was gathered with regards to their spiritual needs and the interests they had prior to living in the home. People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming into the home to ensure the service could effectively support them. Following the initial assessment a more detailed assessment was carried out to help understand more detailed needs and wishes of a person. A family member told us, “I have been asked if I am happy with [person’s] care, she generally keeps busy.” We saw that the pre-assessment form allows the home to gather enough information to be able to decide on whether they could meet a person’s needs.

The Manager told us they used their care planning tool to record the health needs of each person. In the event of a person’s health changing rapidly they told us carers worked closely alongside nursing staff. Nursing staff were responsible for assessing a person and seeking swift medical interventions where needed. We learnt that in addition to qualified nursing staff the home had a care home assistant practitioner (CHAP) on each level of the building. This person could support nursing staff by carrying out a range of health observations.

The provider had regular meetings with health professionals. These inclided weekly meetings with clinicians that included the GP for the home. This practice allowed for changes in people’s health to be discussed and important decisions to be made about their care. There were a range of measures in place to assess people’s ongoing changes in their health and how information was discussed between management staff and nurses and was disseminated to the rest of the team for them to be aware of.

People were involved in planning their care and this was evidenced by the detailed information in their care plans about things that were important to them. We saw drinks next to people, within easy reach whether they were in their bedroom, living room or activity rooms. During our visit we observed people having their lunch. We saw a person refuse their meal and staff offer an alternative. We noted that owing to the person’s needs, this was a difficult to manage. However, we continued to observe and saw the staff member’s perseverance in using different techniques which resulted in the person eating all of their meal. We noted that not all people were seated in the lounge at mealtimes, some people needed to be supported in bed owing to health concerns. We saw people being served their food with staff supporting them in a way in which maintained their safety and prevented risk of choking. The home used different methods to ascertain whether people were experiencing pain, including an assessment based upon how a person might be presenting. This was of particular importance as many people living in the home did not use speech. The assessment enabled staff to better understand whether people were experiencing pain and support them appropriately. We spoke to health professionals who supported the home with people who had eating and swallowing difficulties. They told us how they felt staff were trained sufficiently to know when a person was experiencing swallowing difficulties and how to make referrals to specialist services for support if needed. Care plans included information about the person’s nutritional needs making sure staff understood what people needed as well as what people liked and disliked in terms of the food they ate.

The staff told us they worked closely with other health professionals to monitor people’s health and implement ways to address imbalances. They gave several examples of how they work with other professionals to improve people’s health outcomes, including support with mobility, diabetes and people who have difficulties swallowing.

The provider’s electronic care planning system provided the staff with Important information relating to people’s health. We saw how information was recorded about the frequency of when people were repositioned. This is of particular importance for a person who may be at risk of pressure sores. The information detailed how often a person should be repositioned and when it had occurred. We saw records of minor injuries such as bruising which detailed the treatment for these. We also saw evidence of how the provider monitored people’s weight over consecutive weeks which ensured that significant changes were picked up quickly. We saw evidence in care plans of how the home documented the amount of liquids and food a person drank and ate each day to ensure they received enough fluids and food.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff supporting people in the home asked permission before assisting people. One relative we spoke to said, “They always ask [person’s] permission before helping with anything.” People’s care plans documented their consent to care where possible. In cases where it was no longer possible to gain people’s consent, we saw evidence that decisions were made in their best interests and relatives or those important to the person were involved in the process. Throughout our visits we saw staff were respectful of people’s personal spaces and knocked each time before entering.

The management team were able to tell us about the systems and processes for gaining consent from people which included capturing this information in their pre-assessment process. Staff told us how they always ask people regardless of whether the person has capacity. They told us about the importance of seeking permission from the person before offering support.

Mental capacity assessments were in place for people living in the home. These assessments were carried out to find out if a person is still able to make decisions for themselves and where it is not possible, what the process is and who is involved in making important decisions in their lives. The assessments included areas such as medication, support with personal care and nutrition. Where people were not able to make decisions for themselves, we saw evidence of meetings to discuss what was in the person’s best interest around each area. Where a person lacked capacity, we saw applications made acknowledging a need to deprive a person of their liberty to ensure important care practices occurred on their behalf which maintained the person’s health and welfare. We saw evidence the home followed the necessary processes to enable them to do this with authorisations in place relevant to each person.