Manor View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found 1 breach of regulation in relation to good governance. We reviewed systems and processes in place to monitor the service and found they were not always effective. Social activities and stimulation were limited. People and relatives, we spoke with told us they were not involved in the running of the home or discussions around their care plans. The management team requires development and systems require improving to become effective. Audits had not always identified issues we found during our inspection. The provider had a refurbishment plan but there were no timescales or priority order, therefore no assurances of when issues would be resolved.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The home had a registered manager who had been in place since January 2024. Staff told us improvements had been made but there was a lot left to do. They felt supported by the registered manager, but felt they often raised issues that didn’t get resolved. The registered manager told us they spoke with the provider regularly to explain what was required to address issues within the home.

There was very little social stimulation for people using the service. An activity co-ordinator was employed but was often required to assist the care staff. There was no interaction between the 2 buildings despite the service operating as one single service overall. Both buildings were staffed separately which meant that if staff had to cover in the other building, staff lacked insight around people's needs and preferences.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they felt well supported in their role. Staff told us there had been several managers and they struggled to keep up to date with changes made. Staff told us the current registered manager was approachable and listened to them. However, they had not always seen improvements. The registered manager told us they had worked closely with the local authority to improve the service and acknowledged there was still some actions to address.

Whilst the registered manager was generally able to explain how to lead the service and deliver care effectively, their knowledge was not consistently put into practice and they didn’t always demonstrate confident understanding about the concerns we identified, such as the poor deployment of staff and governance. They were relatively new in post and continuing to develop their knowledge.

Staff knew about whistle blowing procedures. This meant staff were aware of how to report any unsafe practice. During our visit we observed staff respecting people's confidentiality.

People and relatives told us they had not been invited to attend resident and relatives’ meetings or asked to fill in a survey recently. This showed the systems in place to actively seek people's views required improvement. Relatives were aware of the service's complaints process. People felt they could express their views to staff if they had any concerns. We found people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives because choice was not always actively promoted.

The registered manager told us staff were treat fairly. They tried to support staff by being flexible with work patterns, ensuring they followed all employment laws and being supportive of staff. Staff told us they felt well supported.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to ensure workforce equality, diversity and inclusion was promoted.

Staff told us they often saw the registered manager carrying out checks and walkabouts to identify concerns and improve the service.

The service did not have an effective quality assurance system. The quality of some audits undertaken was poor. As a result, the quality of the service had not been improved since the last inspection. The provider did not have sufficient oversight to monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure there was effective leadership in place. The registered manager carried out checks to assess and improve the quality of the service provided. However, the daily walkabouts completed by the registered manager did not reflect the concerns we found during our assessment. Audits in relation to things such as infection control, people’s experience and staff deployment were in place, but they did not identify concerns found during our assessment. The provider had a refurbishment plan in place but this had no timescales for completion and there was no priority when things would be addressed.

During our inspection we saw people had very little stimulation and nothing much to occupy them. “One person said, "Yes, it is safe, and we are looked after but it is boring here."

Staff told us that a variety of health and social care professionals were involved in supporting people. We spoke with staff about engagement with the local community and they told us sometimes entertainers visited. The registered manager and provider shared some evidence of activities which had occurred at the home but there was a lack of community engagement.

At the time of our assessment the home was working closely with the local authority to address concerns which had been identified as a result of commissioner’s visits. The local authority felt the home was improving but still had issues to address, such as activities being dull and boring and care plans needed to reflect care delivery.

People had been referred to healthcare professionals as required. Dieticians, GP's, district nurses etc. Dieticians had raised some concerns and so had been supporting staff with improvements.

The registered manager told us they had inherited concerns in the home and had been in several meetings with the local authority and other agencies to discuss improving the service.

At our last inspection this key question was rated requires improvement. Based on our findings from this assessment the provider has not been able to demonstrate any sustainable improvements. There was a poor understanding of the need for a timely and productive refurbishment plan and poor understanding of how improvements to the home could help improve experience of people living there and for future placements.