Manor Residential Home (Arnold) Limited

Manor Residential Home (Arnold) Limited is a care home registered to provide personal and nursing care, including to those living with dementia. The service can support up to 27 people. At the time of our inspection 26 people were living at the home. The home is split over 2 floors with communal areas on the ground floor and an outdoor communal space surrounding the property.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from the risk of abuse, harm and neglect by suitably trained staff who knew them well. Concerns were reported and acted upon. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and enjoyed living at the home.

Medicines were administered safely and referrals to other medical professionals were timely and recommendations were acted upon. There were enough competent staff on shift to ensure people were safe and received good quality care. Staff members told us they were encouraged and given the time to sit and socialise with people to build open and trusting relationships.

People were supported with their nutritional requirements and offered choice. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and supported people to be as independent as possible.

Staff were recruited safely. Appropriate checks were undertaken prior to people commencing employment and staff were supported with an induction and rolling training programme to ensure they were skilled within their roles.

People told us the service was well led and they received person centred care. Relatives we spoke with supported this and told us management were open and approachable. Management and staff were clear about their roles, responsibilities and continuously looked for ways to develop and improve the service and the level of care provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 November 2020).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, effective and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Visitors were booked in advance and had use of a large conservatory to visit loved ones behind a screen with direct access from the garden. This meant people and their relatives could safely spend time together.

¿ The provider ensured there was sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and PPE stations had been introduced around the home for staff to access.

¿ Staff had individual boxes for personal items they needed to avoid cross contamination.

¿ The registered manager told us staff had demonstrated high commitment to maintaining people’s safety and had managed to cover shifts internally when staff were self-isolating.

¿The provider had provided staff with scrub suits when they were caring for COVID-19 positive people, which were washed by the home.

¿ The provider had introduced hands free sanitisers and specialist cleaning machines to reduce the risk of spread of infection.

¿ Cleaning of frequent touch points had been increased and cleaning fluids had been changed in response to COVID-19.

¿ Following an audit, the provider had replaced soft furnishing with materials that could be wiped down.

¿ The provider had converted a spare bedroom to a temporary staff room, to ensure staff could socially distance when on breaks.

¿ The registered manager told us staff were vigilant and reported each other if PPE was not worn correctly to ensure standards.

¿ The provider was minimising the use of public transport by providing taxis for staff.

¿ Whilst people were isolating the service closed its dining room and people ate in their rooms until the isolation period was over. Staff numbers had been increased to support people when isolated in their rooms.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The Manor Residential Home (Arnold) Limited provides accommodation for up to 27 older people who require support with their personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people living at the service.

At the last inspection, on 9 and 10 February 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

The service had a manager who had submitted an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). They had been in post for two weeks at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix to support people with their care needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service.

Staff received a comprehensive induction process and on-going training. Staff said they were supported by the manager and had supervision meetings. Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

Staff gained consent before supporting people. They were supported to make decisions about aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People usually received enough to eat and drink. Staff did not always give people support to eat when they needed this. Charts to monitor people's food intake were not always completed correctly. People were supported to access health appointments including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained by staff. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were involved in their assessments and in developing their support plans. The support plans were reviewed and updated to reflect people’s current needs.

People were encouraged to participate in activities. An activities plan was being developed based on what people wanted to do. Information was available for people on how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service they received. The provider responded to complaints following their policies and procedures.

The manager and provider had identified areas for improvement and were working to develop an action plan to address these.

A variety of quality audits were carried out, which were used to drive continuous improvement and used to good effect in supporting people and staff to express their views about the delivery of care.

Everyone we spoke with told us they were happy and settled living at the home. One person said, 'Everything is good, the staff are kind to me.' Another person said, 'The staff are wonderful, they help me when needed and my needs are met.'

Three people told us they were aware they had plans of care in place and although they had not really been involved in these they knew their relatives had been. They all felt that staff were aware of their preferences and they supported them in the way they preferred.

Although there had been developments in the care planning process, further action was still required in regard to this and the secure storage of records.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe and that staff were well trained to carry out their job role. One person said, 'The staff are very good, I feel they are well trained to do their job.' Another person said, 'The staff are wonderful, and they are well trained and good at their job.'

One relative told us they felt the staff were well trained and they were good at their job.