Background to this inspection
Updated
11 January 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Service and service type
Manton Hall is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The registered manager de-registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 24 May 2019. The provider had appointed a new manager and their application to register with CQC was in progress. This meant, once registered, they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
This inspection was unannounced.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we held about the service such as notifications. These are events which happen in the service the provider is required to tell us about. We also considered the last inspection report and information sent to us by other agencies. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this and the other information we received into account when we inspected the service and in making the judgements in this report.
During the inspection
We spoke with five people using the service and two relatives. We had discussions with seven members of staff including the activities coordinator, chef, catering assistant, hostess, laundry assistant and two care staff. We spoke with the manager and the company operations development manager. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We reviewed a range of records including three people’s care and medication records. We also reviewed a variety of records relating to staff recruitment, training, supervision and support and the management oversight of the service.
Updated
11 January 2020
About the service
Manton Hall is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 34 older people. At the time of our inspection 32 people were living in the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received safe care and were protected against avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination. Risks to people's safety were assessed and strategies were put in place to reduce any risks. People received care from staff that were safely recruited. There were enough staff to ensure people’s care needs were met. People’s medicines were safely managed, and systems were in place to control and prevent the spread of infection.
People's needs were assessed before they went to live at the service. Staff received an induction when they first commenced work at the service and ongoing training that enabled them to provide effective care.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and well-being. Staff placed a strong emphasis on the dining experience to ensure it was enjoyed by all. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and have access to healthcare services.
The service had a friendly atmosphere where visitors were welcomed. The premises were homely and adapted to meet the needs of people using the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service very well and had built up kind and compassionate relationships with them. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. People's privacy and dignity was
always maintained.
People’s care plans were detailed and supported staff to provide personalised care. People were encouraged to take part in a variety of activities and interests of their choice. There was a complaints procedure in place and systems to deal with complaints effectively. The service provided end of life care to people when required.
The service was well managed. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and actions were taken, and improvements were made, when required. We received positive comments from people using the service, relatives and staff who praised the support they received from the manager. Staff were motivated to work to the values of the service to ensure people received good quality care.
The service worked in partnership with outside agencies. Staff, people using the services and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback which was analysed and acted upon when required.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 30 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.