CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Manna House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks, individual risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. The home was clean and safety checks were carried out.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staff received induction, supervision and training, and people were supported with meals, healthcare and communication.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed warm and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions, supported to communicate and given privacy, dignity and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences and support needs. People were supported with meaningful activities, community access, therapies and developing independence.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits and feedback to monitor the service. Inspectors found an open culture, regular meetings and a focus on improving person-centred care.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Manna House was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support with no breaches reported.
The inspection visit took place on 12 April 2019 and was announced 48 hours in advance. One inspector spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home supported seven adults with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found enough permanent staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems and a clean, well-maintained environment. Staff were trained and knew people's needs and preferences.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in community activities. Inspectors found warm and respectful relationships, accessible information and regular opportunities for people and relatives to give their views.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2016.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, manage some risks and take part in activities in the home and community.
“This helped to ensure people were safe and their freedom respected so they were able to their life as ordinary as any other citizen as much as possible.” from the report
Caring staff
Staff knew people well and inspectors observed warm, compassionate interactions. The home used permanent staff rather than agency staff.
“We observed positive and warm interactions between staff and the people they were supporting.” from the report
Accessible communication
People had care information in formats they could understand. Staff used tools such as picture cards, signs and symbols to support communication.
“Information was provided to people in such a way they could understand.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to use local facilities, attend activities and develop vocational and life skills.
“People were very much a part of the community and accessed the community and its facilities through socialising and activities.” from the report
Strong management oversight
The home had audits, feedback meetings and plans to support continuity of care. Staff were encouraged to suggest improvements.
“The service had a comprehensive system of audits to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative to make choices and take positive risks while staying safe?
- 02How will you communicate with my relative if they cannot use speech, and how will you keep their communication plan up to date?
- 03How many permanent staff will usually support my relative, and how do you cover sickness or absence?
- 04What activities, community visits and opportunities to build independence would be available to my relative?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and giving feedback?
This was a scheduled inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous overall rating was Good from an inspection report published in October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Manna House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good management and activities.
The announced inspection took place on 12 September 2016. Inspectors gave 48 hours' notice because the home was small. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, safety checks and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and staff understood people's needs and preferences.
People were involved in their care plans, food choices and activities. Staff supported people to stay independent and take part in community life if they wished. The home had complaint information in an accessible format, and checks were in place to monitor the quality of care.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found medicines records and stocks matched, and staff understood how medicines were ordered, received and stored. People and relatives had no concerns about staff availability or continuity.
“We found medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that staff knew people's likes, dislikes and routines. Care records used respectful language and people were involved in planning their care.
“We saw staff were caring. We observed one staff member sat with a person and helped them plan their day.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose food, activities and community involvement. Staff helped people remain independent and pursue interests that mattered to them.
“People were encouraged to maintain their independence and spend time in the community if they wished to do so.” from the report
Good oversight
Management used audits, meetings and surveys to gather views and check areas such as medicines, infection control, care records and the environment.
“There were quality assurance systems in place to identify if improvements were required.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are currently available, and has the recruitment mentioned in the report been completed?
- 02How are medicines currently checked, recorded and stored, including if a person wants to manage their own medicines?
- 03How are current risk assessments updated when a person's needs or chosen activities change?
- 04What activities, community opportunities and support for independence are available now?
- 05How can people and relatives make a complaint, and how are complaints recorded and answered?
This was an announced inspection of the care home and the personal care service managed from it, using observations, discussions and a sample of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Manna House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.