The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Manor Hey Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Manorhey Care Centre, 130 Stretford Road, Urmston, Greater Manchester, M41 9LT (0161) 747 6888

Provided and run by:
New Care Projects LLP

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

14 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 14 October 2014 and was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were visiting. The last full inspection took place on 16 September 2013 during which we found there were no breaches in the regulations.

Manor Hey Care Centre provides nursing and personal care for up to 83 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. The home accommodates people over three floors and has recently extended the home to accommodate more people who are living with dementia or who require nursing care.

The home is required to have a registered manager. At the time of our inspection the new manager had been in post since 8 October and had not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission.  A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.  

Through notifications we had received we had been made aware that the home had recently experienced some difficulties which they had managed appropriately. The home had employed an occupational therapist (OT) and a physiotherapist to support the existing staff to help ensure people’s care and nursing needs were met. People who used the service could access clinical support in house when they needed it, which enabled the staff to respond better to people’s changing needs in a timely way.

We spoke with the OT who told us about the plans to implement an “enablement model” of support throughout the home. This would join up support from across the multi-disciplinary team within the home and ensure all people received person centred care and support.

The provider had kept the Care Quality Commission informed of safeguarding incidents which had occurred within the home. We had been kept informed of the outcomes of these incidents and any lessons which had been learned to keep people safe.

We found the home to be well maintained, clean, relaxed and friendly.  Due to the complex care needs of some people living at Manor Hey we were unable to obtain their views about the quality of service they experienced. We observed however that staff treated people with kindness and dignity. The people we could speak with were very positive about the care they received at the home and staff we spoke with were open about their experiences during the difficulties the home had faced in recent months.

People and their families told us that they were consulted with, or about, their care needs and if they had any concerns, they felt confident to talk to the staff. They told us they were kept informed of things they felt they needed to know about. We observed the relationship between the staff and visiting relatives was positive and appropriate.

We conducted observations and saw staff interacted well with people and had a courteous, caring and patient approach. Staff did not rush people and gave them time to make decisions.  People using the service and their families felt that the service was responsive if they had any queries of concerns. One person told us, “If there is anything I need I just speak to the staff that will sort it out or pass it on.”

5 March 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We had received a concern that people may be being locked in their bedrooms at night time in order to stop them wandering into other people's bedrooms.

We found where this happened it was at the request of the person and there was written consent in place. We observed people moving freely about the unit with no restrictions.

26 November 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We conducted this inspection in response to information we had received regarding concerns about the recruitment process of registered general nurses (RGN's) at Manor Hey.

We had been made aware by the provider that the previous manager had left and the acting manager had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager. Our records confirmed this.

The manager was aware of the concerns people had in relation to the recent safeguarding alerts and had attended meetings with the local authority to discuss the issues further. We could see from the information held on file the investigations were still on going and at the time of our visit there had not been an outcome. The manager said they would keep us informed.

We saw the files of the most recently recruited members of staff. We could see the recruitment process had been followed. Appropriate checks such as a disclosure and barring (DBS) check had been undertaken before new staff had begun work.

We spoke to people who used the service on the day of inspection and on a previous inspection carried out on 16th September 2013 but not in relation to these specific outcome areas.

16 September 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We looked at a sample of people's care plans and found them to be detailed and they provided enough information about the person's needs. Risk assessments had been completed in relation to falls, bed safety rails and nutrition.

We walked around the building and found all areas were generally clean and tidy. We noted an unpleasant odour in one area; domestic staff were preparing to clean the carpet. We saw staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. Liquid soap and paper towels were provided in all areas of the home. Sanitising hand gel dispensers were affixed to the walls to help reduce the risk of infection.

We saw care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed on a monthly basis or more frequently if needed. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions we saw evidence to show that a best interests meeting had been arranged and a record, signed by the general practitioner (GP) and social worker (SW) had been kept.

The registered manager had been seconded to another home and the deputy manager was acting up as manager in his absence. They had completed a management qualification and had the necessary skills and experience to carry out the role.

7 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with staff about what they would do if a person who used the service refused consent. We were told 'If a person refused I would assess the situation and document it, it is the person's right to refuse'.

The expert by experience observed staff speaking to people who used the service in a calm manner and observed a good interaction between them.

We asked staff to tell us how they ensured people who used the service received safe and effective care. Comments such as 'people's involvement in care plans is important I make sure all documents are completed' and 'I go through care files it is important, we need to know choices and care needs and all the information is there' were given.

We looked at four staff files and saw evidence of safeguarding training and we saw a training matrix for all staff members. We saw there was training booked for some staff members and others had completed training.

The people who used the service we spoke with told us the staff know what they were doing and are very good. One person told us 'The staff are trained and good, there was a high turn over of staff but this has settled now and the staff are regular'.

The Manager is registered with the Care Quality Commission a copy of this certificate was on display in the home.

The records contained information such as personal details and GP. There was evidence of care planning and risk assessments.

15 August 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This review took place to check the provider had made improvements in relation to some concerns we identified at previous inspections. People using the service generally gave us positive feedback about the service and about the care they received at Manor Hey. Some people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

During this visit we spoke with five people living at the home, two people's relatives, three members of staff and the managers. Their comments included: 'They always knock before coming in.'

'The girls are busy but they always smile and are kind.'

'They give us choices about things.'

We talked with two people's relatives living in the home during our visit. They were generally positive complimentary about the care and support their relative received. One person's relative told us: "The staff are kind, they appear to do their best. Another person said "They don't always tell you what is happening and keep me up to date. Saying that when my relative needs them they are willing to help."

We saw that staff were polite, friendly and cheerful. Staff approached people in a gentle and sensitive way explaining what they were doing and why.

10 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People who were able to comment were generally satisfied with the care provided at Manor Hey. Relatives we spoke with believed there had been improvements and the home was meeting their relatives' needs. Some of the people living at the home had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us. Due to this we used a formal way to observe people to help us understand how their needs were supported. This is called the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). Some of these observations have been included in this report.

We found shortfalls in staff promoting and maintaining people's privacy, dignity and independence during this visit and in staff having received training specifically in dementia care and challenging behaviour.

Comments from relatives we spoke with were positive about the care, the staff and the way their relative was looked after; "The staff members are good, it is getting better.'

'I visit every day so that I can feel safe in knowing my relative is cared for.'

For part of this inspection we were supported by an Expert by Experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. This person talked with a number of people who use the service at Manor Hey care centre. The Expert by Experience completed a report after the inspection and some of their comments and observations are included in this report.

As part of this inspection a pharmacist inspector from the Care Quality Commission visited the home on the 11 May 2012 to review the management of medicines in the home. During this visit we found people were protected against the risks associated with medicines. We also contacted Trafford Commissioning service and looked at their most recent report. Where possible comments are included in this report from these sources.

19 December 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We undertook an inspection of the service on the 19th December 2011 in response to information of concern we received from two whistle blowers, who said that peoples care needs were not being met, assessments were being completed by staff who were not qualified or skilled to do so, safeguarding information had not been passed to Trafford Council and both whistle blowers expressed concerns about low staffing levels at the service.

During our inspection of the 19th December 2011, we also followed up on compliance actions that we made following an inspection of the service in September 2011.

44 people living at Manor Hey Care Centre had a diagnosis of dementia or suffered from short term memory loss, because of this some people were unable to make comments on the care and treatment they received. This report is based on our observations of those people living at Manor Hey Care Centre and our discussions with their relatives, and professional visitors to the home. We also spoke to several other people who were able to comment on the care and treatment they received at Manor Hey Care Centre.

A visitor told us that their relative did have an assessment of their needs completed prior to being admitted. They told us that they had been involved and consulted as part of the process.

One visitor told us they were not informed when their relative had a fall and they only found out after observing bruises on their relative.

Another visitor told us that they felt their relative was safe and they had never seen or heard anything of concern at the care home.

Another visitor told us that they thought staff were kind and very patient with people who lived at the care home.

We were told 'There is a general good atmosphere in the home" and 'on the whole staff are kind.'

Another visitor said, 'Staff are attentive to people's needs' and that their relative was 'always clean, smartly dressed and clean shaven' when they visited.

One person said there was a high turnover of staff at the service and said, 'which is not good.'

Other relatives told us they could come and go as they pleased and had no concerns.

30 December 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We undertook an inspection of Manor Hey Care Centre on the afternoon of Friday 30th December 2011 in response to information we received from members of the public who were concerned that the home had been insufficiently staffed on the 27th December 2011. Visitors to the home on the 27th December 2011 said that there had only been six members of staff on duty, the six included two Registered General Nurses. Visitors said staff were crying and were described them as being upset and were seen, 'Running around' in a hurried state, whilst trying to meet peoples care needs. They told us that people living at the service were seen wandering around on their own with very little staff supervision because staff were busy assisting those people who required two members of staff to meet their care needs in bedrooms.

We were told that Trafford Social Services Emergency Duty Team was contacted by an anonymous complainant at 2:45pm who reported that there were only six members of staff on duty for the entire service.

We contacted the registered provider on the 28th December 2011 and asked them to provide a report in response to the information we had received. The registered provider sent us a report on the 29th December 2011 in which they told us that there had been a shortfall in staffing levels over a two hour period and of their efforts on the day to increase staffing levels.

On the 30th December 2011 we received further information of concern from a visitor to the home who alleged that on the 27th December 2011 they too had been told by care staff that only six members of staff were on duty. Care staff had told them that people living at the service had not been given their lunch time meal until late afternoon because there wasn't enough staff to assist people. They said that people were still in their pyjamas at 3pm and some people were not got up out of bed until noon. They told us that they attributed this to the low number of staff on duty.

We received information from Trafford Council that when they visited the service at 4pm on 27th December 2011 it was found to be sufficiently staffed.

Because of the high level of reported concerns we made the decision to inspect the service to seek assurances that the service would be sufficiently staffed over the New Year bank holiday.

13 September 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Visitors told us they were happy with the care that their relatives was receiving and that they thought their relative was "well looked after". They told us care staff kept them informed of changes. They told us that when they visit the service they had observed care staff treating other residents with respect and kindness.

People told us that some times their daily routines fitted in around staff routines. Some people told us that they didn't have a problem with this as they were satisfied with the care they received. One person told us that they didn't like having their evening meal at 5pm as they thought this was too early.

We spoke to two people about their medicines. One person told us that she had been prescribed eye drops because her eyes were sore but that she had not been given them for a number of days. Another person was prescribed medication for Parkinson's disease and she was anxious that her medication was given to her at the right time so that her symptoms could be properly controlled and she told us that she did get her medicines on time.

People told us they liked their bedrooms.

People told us that some care staff complained to them that there was not always enough staff on duty. People told us, "They do their best. It's difficult, people come and go. They can't keep the staff."

Other people told us that agency staff were used and that these staff did not know how to meet their care needs. One person told us that their relative needed to take one tablet at a time because they had difficulty swallowing, but the agency nurse was not aware of this and had given them all their tablets at once.

Other people told us that agency staff were used and that these staff did not know how to meet their care needs. One person told us that their relative needed to take one tablet at a time because they had difficulty swallowing, but the agency nurse was not aware of this and had given them all their tablets at once.

27 June 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they had a choice about what time they went to bed and when they got up.

People told us that the service did not provide any suitable activities to occupy them.

People told us that there was usually enough staff on duty to assist them.

31 March 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they did not know what a care plan was. People told us they had not been consulted about their care plan and that they had never signed their care plan.

One person asked "what's a care plan?"

People told us they were not involved in the review of their care.

People told us they had been consulted when they initially moved into the home when an assessment of their care needs was completed but there had been no other discussions.

People told us they were pleased with the care they received and described staff as "kind and attentive" and that they had no complaints about staff.

One person spoke highly of a member of care staff who helped her shower everyday and said they really appreciated the help.

People told us they very dissatisfied with the range of activities provided. Many told us that before moving into the home they had been promised a range of activities including arts and crafts but this had not been provided.

People said that bingo sessions had been held before Christmas and but these hadn't taken place since the home had become busier when more people were admitted.

People told us that staff were very busy and didn't have time to provide activities.

People complained that all they had to do to occupy their time was to watch TV and they were bored.

People told us that two residents/relatives meeting had been held and that they were able to express their opinion at these meetings and were able to tell the nominated individual their likes and dislikes.