Manor Field

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 people are always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. At our last inspection we rated this key question Good. During our assessment of this key question, the provider failed to ensure people were always treated with dignity and respect. This resulted in a breach of regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We assessed 2 quality statements in the caring key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. People were not supported following ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. People could not always go out when they wanted to. Staff did not always treat people in a dignified way or used undignified language when they referred to people. Staff told us they did always feel supported by the management team. Relatives told us staff encouraged people to engage in activities, however they wished their loved ones went out and about more.

This service scored 70 (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.

People’s friends and families were free to visit them with no restrictions. People chose when they went to bed, and when they woke up. People had time to themselves. Relatives told us staff supported their loved ones to maintain their independence and have choice and control over their lives. One relative told us, “[Our relative] loves to go to the gym”.

Staff confirmed that communication was kept to short, simple and concise phrases, allowing for people to understand and process the information being relayed. Meal Planners were completed with people’s choices being taken into account, however improvements are needed in relation to information for staff to follow with regards to people making requests for food and drinks to ensure consistency for people. Staff told us and records showed us that they promote and facilitate lots of visits to family homes for people, however during the onsite inspection, one person’s planned family leave day had to be changed due to lack of staff drivers availability at the weekend. Staff told us this sometimes happened at the service, due to lack of staff who were able to drive. People were supported by staff to utilise, for example, Objects of Reference, PECs Cards, Now and Next Planner, to communicate their choices and evidence their decision making. Some people utilised technology as a means of identifying items such as clothing that they wanted to purchase or to look up forthcoming events with staff. People were supported to access opportunities in the local area, complete 1-1 and group activities such as meals out, local walk, drives, swimming, and trips such as the zoo, and bowling. The interim manager told us that it was vital that people at the service felt it was their home and that they had control over the way they received their support. This included being involved in the daily running of the service. People were supported to be involved with things such as cooking, cleaning and laundry to develop further independence. Staff confirmed that the support provided by them, was enough to bridge the gap in order for each person, to complete the remainder of the task themselves. Staff also said that this depended on how engaged the person was on the day or at the time and if they were interested.

We observed staff asking people for their consent and offering people choices throughout the site visits and staff were kind to people. However, inspectors also identified some shortfalls in care. People were not always treated with dignity, we identified a breach of the regulations. We found that one person had an observational window into their flat. This was not respecting their privacy or dignity, as you could see into their lounge and bedroom. The regional manager informed us during the inspection that these had been since covered up. People were seen during the onsite inspection visits to be enjoying their activities (games, music, etc.) which were personal to them. Some people who had their own garden space had decorated these themselves. People’s accommodation reflected their interests and people had choice of their furnishings and colour schemes.

Processes were not always in place to support people's choices and preferences. There was a lack of considerations to how people were given real choice and control over their lives, how they were supported to live their best lives, what plans were place to reduce restriction imposed on them and how people were being enabled have control over their own homes and lives. For example, one person had high levels of restrictions built into their care plan, with no indication as to who supported these decisions or what health professionals had agreed to them. There was also no indication in what to do if the person refused what the staff offered them to eat or drink or what to do if the person asked for something else. Their care plan was not dignified or respectful, as it advised staff to use plastic tableware for the person and gave no indication of what skills the person had. It also listed what the person liked to watch on tv, but did not evidence how staff knew this or when the person had been asked about this. Inspectors also found there was no reference to the person’s preferences in relation to their diet and fluid intake or what their lifestyle choices were. Inspectors also found similar examples in other people’s care plans at Manor Field. For example, for another person, there appeared to be a lack of dignity in the way their care plan was written. As it had little to no consideration as to the person’s skills in the kitchen or how these could be enhanced to ensure they were involved in all their food and drink preparation. There was no ability for the person to access food or snacks freely or independently, no indication what consultation has been held with the person in relation to their diet, no reference to their preferences in relation to food or fluid intake or what their lifestyle choices were. It also stated that the person had set cooking days at the service, even though it stated they were able to make food and drinks.

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.