CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Manton Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had suitable training and support, and people were helped with nutrition, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and built kind relationships with them. People were treated with dignity, offered choices and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and were under regular review. People had access to activities, social contact and support with complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and staff spoke positively about the manager. Audits, meetings, care reviews and feedback were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Manton Hall was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 04 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home provided accommodation and personal care for up to 34 older people. At the inspection, 32 people lived there. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. Staff were trained and supported people with food, drink and healthcare.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were personalised and activities supported people's interests. The home was well managed, with audits, meetings and feedback used to make improvements. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 30 June 2017.
Safe staffing
People and staff said there were enough staff. Inspectors also saw staff working together to support people during lunch.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's care needs were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and helpful. Inspectors saw staff treating people with understanding and respecting their privacy and dignity.
“Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, interests and support needs. Staff knew people well and used this information in their care.
“The care plans were personalised and contained information about people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities and outings that interested them. Visitors were welcomed and there were no visiting restrictions reported.
“They told us they had the opportunity to go out regularly for visits and social activities” from the report
Quality oversight
The manager and operations development manager carried out audits and followed up actions. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback.
“Actions from the audits were identified and undertaken.” from the report
Manager registration was still in progress
minorThe previous manager had left their registration and a new manager had been appointed. The new manager's application to register with CQC had not yet been completed at the inspection.
“The provider had appointed a new manager and their application to register with CQC was in progress.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now completed their application to register with CQC?
- 02How are medicines checked and what happens if a medicines error is found?
- 03How will you assess and monitor my relative's nutrition, swallowing or weight needs?
- 04How will my relative's communication needs, cultural preferences and daily choices be recorded and followed?
- 05What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2020 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, June 2017
Manton Hall was rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised and caring support, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with 13 people living in the home, four relatives and five staff. They observed care, reviewed four care records and checked medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home provided care for people living with dementia. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practices and suitable checks when staff were recruited. Risks such as falls and pressure areas were assessed and managed.
People received personalised care. Staff supported people with food, drink, healthcare, activities, hobbies and faith. People were treated with dignity, and their views were used to improve the service.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in September 2016.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, with suitable recruitment checks. Call bells were answered quickly and staff had time to interact with people.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff that had been subject to appropriate pre-employment checks working in the home.” from the report
Personalised care
People had detailed care plans, and staff knew their routines and preferences. People's needs were reviewed so support could be adjusted.
“People had detailed individual plans of care in place to provide guidance to staff in providing personalised care and support.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff knocked before entering bedrooms, used people's preferred names and protected their privacy when providing personal care.
“We observed staff knocking on people's bedroom doors prior to entering and referring to people by their preferred name.” from the report
Supporting interests
People were helped to continue hobbies and pursue personal wishes. Examples included keeping birds and visiting a garden centre.
“People were supported to pursue their interests and maintain their hobbies.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The manager gathered views from people and relatives. Changes to mealtimes were made after feedback from people living in the home.
“In response to people's feedback since our last inspection the registered manager had reviewed how the service supported people at mealtimes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you record and follow my relative's personal routines, preferences and wishes?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough trained staff on each shift, including when the home is short staffed?
- 03How will you manage my relative's particular risks, such as falls or pressure areas?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given safely and that staff remain competent to administer them?
- 05What activities, hobbies, faith support and outside visits could be offered to my relative?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 2017 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 Manton Hall
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 January 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Rutland
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 £1,310 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
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.