Langham Manor

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 the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People told us that they were treated with kindness and that staff cared about them. Interactions observed between staff and people living in the service were warm and positive.

People were supported to access a wide range of social activities to promote their wellbeing and there were no restrictions on visiting. The environment promoted people’s independence and the layout of the home enabled people to decide where they would like to spend their time.

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.

People told us that they were treated with kindness and that staff cared about them. One person told us “I fell a week ago in the lounge, my leg gave way, I had to lay there for 5 hours, some of the staff should have gone at 5 and 8 but they didn’t go home but stayed with me.” All the relatives we spoke to made positive comments about staff. One told us, “The carers (in the unit where my family member lives) are exceptional, they are part of a family up there, they are lovely.”

Staff had a good understanding of dignity and privacy and how they ensured this when delivering personal care.

No specific concerns were raised by partner agencies.

People appeared at ease with staff, and we observed positive interactions between staff and people. A carer for example was observed kneeling by a person talking to them gently and prompting them to have a drink. Another gently touched a person on the arm and quietly re-orientated to where they wanted to go. Doors were closed appropriately to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and who adapted their communication to take account of people’s individual needs. Staff took their time to communicate with people and we observed staff using different ways to communicate, including lowering their voice and adapting their tone.

People told us that their care was individualised, and staff were aware of their needs and preferences. One person told us, “I can have a lie in if I want but the staff would check on you to see if you were alright”. Another person described how important it was to them that personal care was delivered by a female staff member and staff ensured that these wishes were respected.

Staff told us that they had access to the information they needed to deliver people’s care and support. Staff knew people well and people were cared for by a consistent team of staff.

During our assessment we witnessed staff providing people with choice and staff adapted their communication in line with people’s needs.

The environment promoted people’s independence and the layout of the home enabled people to decide where they would like to spend their time. We observed people during the day taking part in a range of activities as well as having their relatives visit. We were informed there were no restriction around visiting.

Care plans were in place and information was included on people’s cultural social and religious needs.

People told us that they had choice and control over their lives. One person told us, “I feel quite independent, I get my own Weetabix and coffee in the morning, I suggested that to the staff, I make my own bed, keep my room tidy” Another told us, I could have a shower every day, but have one once a week, got to have one staff, a female.”

People had access to and enjoyed the social and leisure activities which were available. One person described how a member of staff had taken them to the remembrance parade which was very special to them as they attended in previous years with their loved ones.

Another told us, “They have entertainments, games, bingo, have a 1 to 1 in town, went to a garden centre and tea dances, go to sports hall for bowls, done painting. The girl who organised them is wonderful, she is good, the best. There is enough to do …….We can make ourselves tea and coffee if we want to, or staff will make them.”

Staff understood the importance of people making decisions for themselves. They respected people's choices such as where people wanted to spend their time, what they wanted to eat and if they wanted to involve themselves in activities.

We observed some good interactions on the day of our assessment and saw that people could choose where to spend their time. People had access to social activities and the minibus supported people to access the local community. We observed visitors coming and going throughout the day.

People had good sized bedrooms, and some people had brought their own possessions. The environment supported people to live in an enriching space with facilities they could use, which included individual units which had on site kitchen areas so snacks could be prepared. Drink stations and snack stations meant people and their relatives could help themselves to drinks and an onsite café gave people an alternative place to meet their relatives. The entry of the home was welcoming, and a full-time receptionist helped ensure visitors were greeted and helped to promote the safety of those entering and leaving the building. CCTV camera covered external areas. There was a cinema room, and gardens also provided a space for people to access and enjoy.

People expressed confidence that staff would respond to their needs when they needed assistance. One told us, “Staff are lovely, they do everything for me, they are kind, there is nothing that they could do better.”

Staff used a number of monitoring tools to monitor people’s wellbeing. There was evidence to show that concerns were escalated when people’s health or needs changed.

We saw staff spending time with people and responding when they were showing signs of distress or discomfort. However, care plans did not always provide staff with sufficient guidance on how to support people. Pain management tools for example were not consistently in place to identify discomfort.

Most staff told us that they enjoyed working at Langham Manor and they were part of a cohesive team who worked hard to provide a good service. A number raised issues about how they did not always feel valued and that messages were not always delivered in a supportive way. We raised these issues with the regional manager who agreed to explore further as part of their oversight of the service.

Staff were not always clear about the processes in place to enable them to contribute to the day to day running of the service. There were staff meeting but staff spoken with said they did not go to staff meetings due to shift patterns and other commitments. Attendance was therefore low although the manager told us that the minutes were circulated.

The provider had a company awards scheme, and a number of staff had been nominated and attended an awards ceremony for achieving high standards. The registered manager told us that they did not operate an employee of the month as a way of recognising staff achievements, but this might be something that they may consider in the future.