Marsh Farm Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We reviewed all of the quality statements in this key question.

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.

People’s care plans recorded their needs for a range of areas including social needs. People told us they were involved in planning their care and helped to understand any health conditions. People talked to us about how they felt the staff knew them very well. One person said, “It was a big move for me, and it was strange at first but the carers here are really lovely and they all know what I like and what I want, and what I need at any time.” Another person told us, “I wake up at 6.30am, I always have throughout my life, and I press my buzzer and they [staff] give me a cup of tea. I love a cup of tea when I wake up and it is lovely to have one brought to me.”

Staff and leaders were aware of people’s needs and talked to us about how they made sure people were included in care planning. The registered manager told us they would always include people’s relatives if this was what people wanted. Staff told us about ‘resident of the day’ which was a system to make sure people’s care was person-centred. Each day a person was identified to be ‘resident of the day’ which meant all the heads of departments spoke with that person to review their care needs for different areas. For example, the chef would speak with people about their preferences for food and drinks and make sure their likes and dislikes were recorded.

We observed people being supported by staff who clearly knew them and took time to respond in a person-centred way. We observed in people’s care records staff were working with external agencies to try and meet people's individual needs. We saw people were involved in these discussions and their preferences recorded.

People were supported to continue links with any healthcare professionals known to them. Where possible if people were regularly seeing local GP’s or community nurses, staff supported them to continue. One person told us, “The GP visits here every Thursday and that is reassuring. I am very confident that if I had a medical problem, I have every confidence someone would deal with it correctly. Senior people here do talk to you, and I cannot complain at all.”

The registered manager told us that they tried to get care plans started prior to people moving into the home. Any equipment needed to help people was sourced prior to people moving in. People’s needs were discussed at the daily head of department meeting and people were registered with local GP’s.

Feedback shared by the provider from visiting professionals did not raise any concerns with this quality statement.

There were systems to help people receive a continuity in their care. The registered manager told us they made sure local services could support people’s health needs prior to any agreements of placements.

People’s needs with regards to communication were recorded in their care plans. People told us they had the information they needed in formats that were suitable for them.

The provider shared examples with us of how they had produced accessible information for people across their homes. They told us they would consider the individual’s specific needs and produce communication aids and information tailored for the individual.

There were systems to make sure information could be produced in different ways. This included text in large font, pictorial information and in different languages. People’s communication needs were assessed at the pre-admission assessment and recorded in people’s care plans.

People were aware of the complaints process and told us they would raise a concern if they needed to. People told us they felt able to approach the registered manager at any time.

The registered manager told us they had not received formal complaints but made sure people had the opportunity to share their views.

A complaints policy was available for people which outlined the complaints process. The provider told us this could be made available in different formats and languages if needed. Whilst no formal complaints had been received, the service had listened to feedback from people during ‘residents meetings’ and taken action as a result. There was a ‘you said, we did’ board in the foyer which updated people on action taken as a result of feedback.

People told us they could access healthcare services with support from staff. For example, local GPs visited the home, so people did not have to worry about this if they were not able to attend the surgery. People were supported to personalise their rooms if they wished.

The registered manager told us they would always try and make sure people had the care they needed in a timely way. Where people needed it, services were invited into the home to make it easier for people to access them.

Feedback collected by the provider from visiting professionals did not raise any concerns for this quality statement.

The home was purpose built and accessible for people with a range of needs. Corridors and doorways were wide so people with mobility equipment could access the areas they needed to. Lifts were available to support people to move between floors and access the ground floor where the garden was. Staff were available on duty 24 hours a day so people could be assured of assistance at any time.

People had keyworkers who were members of staff allocated to them to personalise their care and support. This helped people communicate their wishes and preferences to staff who knew them very well.

The registered manager told us they support people to live as they want. At the pre-admission assessment stage staff think about the support people would need and any adjustments that would need to be made. Staff listened to people’s views and involved them in their care wherever possible. Staff told us they had not seen any discrimination and made sure people had equal opportunities.

There were systems to make sure care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated. There had been ‘residents meetings’ for people to attend and give feedback on various aspects of their care. Staff told us they had completed various reviews of the week with people. This encouraged people to feedback about what was their favourite meal or activity of the week. Staff told us this helped them get to know people’s preferences and needs. Staff were provided with training on equality, diversity and inclusion to raise awareness of people’s rights and potential discrimination.

People had the opportunity to record their wishes for end-of-life care. Some people had taken the opportunity to do this, and others had not made any decisions at the time of our assessment. Where appropriate people’s relatives had also been involved in discussions and decision making.

The registered manager told us there was a requirement for all care staff to have end of life training which was provided. They told us staff also had access to local hospice services for guidance where needed. Staff showed us on electronic handheld devices they had access to key end of life information for everyone who had made decisions for their future.

People were asked about their decisions for end-of-life care as part of the pre-admission assessment process. The registered manager told us they continued these discussions once people had settled into the service. People’s wishes were recorded in their care plans with details of their preferences and who should be involved. Some people had decided not to record their wishes which was respected by staff. The service had a ‘relatives room’ which could be used by visiting relatives if needed when people were ill or at the end of their life.