CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Manor Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found arrangements for visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Manor Park Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, protective equipment, cleanliness and infection outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The home had a separate summer house for private visits, arranged telephone and video calls, and identified bedrooms for isolation. People newly admitted had to test negative, were tested again on arrival and were isolated.
The overall service and Safe question were marked inspected but not rated. This report does not provide ratings for the other four questions.
Safer visits
The home created a separate summer house so visitors could meet relatives privately, with screening and checks to help reduce infection risks.
“The provider had erected a summer house in the grounds of the service to enable visitors to meet their relatives in private.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends by telephone and video calls.
“Staff had arranged for people to speak to their relatives and friends by telephone and video calls.” from the report
Admission and isolation arrangements
The home had rooms available for isolation and used testing and isolation for people newly admitted.
“People newly admitted to the service had to have a negative covid-19 test, and were also tested on arrival and isolated to prevent the risk of spreading infection.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff had received the recommended infection prevention and control training, with extra guidance and checks on protective equipment.
“The provider had ensured staff had received a recommended level of IPC training.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for visits and visitor checks?
- 02Are the separate visiting arrangements and telephone or video calls still available?
- 03How does the home now manage testing and isolation for people who are newly admitted or develop symptoms?
- 04How often is staff training and use of protective equipment checked?
- 05What were the home's ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care at its most recent full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 2021 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, May 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in quality checks and rated the home Requires Improvement for being well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 April 2019. One inspector spoke with seven people, staff and the registered manager. They looked around the home and reviewed care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, kind care, personalised care plans, activities and good support for people's health and dietary needs.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Audits had not identified some ongoing problems, including unguarded radiators, an overgrown front garden, inconsistent hot water checks and unclear records of money held for people.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 13 October 2016. Inspectors recommended improving audits of the environment and money held for people.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and said they were happy living at the home. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and interests.
“Staff were caring and considerate and listened to what people had to say.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs, preferences and communication needs. People were involved in designing and reviewing their care plans.
“People received personalised care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff received training and said it was good and relevant to their roles.
“People were supported by staff who were motivated, enjoyed their job and felt well supported through supervision and training.” from the report
Safe medicines and clean home
Inspectors found medicines were administered safely and the home was clean, tidy and free from odours.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousAudits did not identify some problems that had been raised previously or needed attention. These included two unguarded bedroom radiators and an overgrown front garden.
“Quality assurance systems were in place, however, these had not always been effective in identifying areas for improvement.” from the report
Hot water checks
seriousHot water temperatures were not always checked monthly, and action was not always taken when water was too hot. The provider's audit had not identified this.
“Hot water temperatures had not always been taken monthly and action had not always been taken when water had been identified as being too hot.” from the report
Money records
needs fixingThe amounts of money held for people were correct, but some records were unclear. One record showed £20 instead of £40.
“Some records were unclear as entries had been over written and on one record £20 had been booked instead of £40.” from the report
End of life discussions
minorPeople had been asked about their end of life wishes, but some did not want to discuss them. The manager recognised that this needed further attention.
“The registered manager was aware this was an area which needed to be addressed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure all bedroom radiators are guarded and the front garden is kept safe?
- 02How are hot water temperatures now checked and recorded each month?
- 03What changes have been made to records of money held on behalf of residents?
- 04How will you make sure each person's end of life wishes are discussed and recorded when they are ready?
- 05How do you check that improvements identified by audits are completed and followed up?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Manor Park Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 February 2011.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.