Manor Farm

Right Support ● The home had not been well-maintained. Several areas of the service had been damaged and needed repair and not all people's bedrooms had been personalised. ● People were not always supported to live healthy lifestyles and staff members did not always promote healthy eating choices. ● People had limited opportunities to develop life skills, and there was little evidence of planning for long term goals and aspirations. ● The service had not always supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and have control over their own lives. ● In the main, staff supported people to take their medicines safely. However, one person had not received their medicine in line with the prescriber's instruction. The person was not harmed by this and the registered manager took immediate action to address this. The registered manager understood the importance of people not being over medicated particularly when managing people's increased anxiety. ● Staff supported people to take part in activities and pursue their interests in their local area and interact with people who had shared interests. People's opportunities to pursue their leisure and social interests had improved in recent months. ● Staff enabled people to access specialist health and social care support in the community.

● Staff worked with people using distraction techniques when they experienced periods of anxiety. People's freedoms were not restricted by staff unless it had been risk assessed as being a safety concern. ● The staff team worked with people to plan for when they experienced periods of distress so that their freedoms were restricted only if there was no alternative.

Right Care ● Staff knew the people they supported well. People received kind, compassionate, and patient care. Staff understood and responded to people's individual needs. However, staff were not always discreet and respectful of people's dignity. The language staff used to describe or refer to people was not always positive or promote people's dignity. ● People were not always supported to respect other people's space and belongings. ● Staff respected and encouraged people to make a choice. However, staff did not always follow through on agreed actions. ● People could take part in activities and pursue interests that were tailored to them. The service gave people opportunities to try new activities that enhanced and enriched their lives. ● The service had enough staff to meet people's individual needs and keep them safe. The service had a high number of vacancies and relied heavily on agency staff. However, these agency staff worked at the home regularly and knew people well. ● Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. ● Staff promoted equality and diversity in their support for people. They understood people's cultural needs and provided culturally appropriate care. ● The registered manager had started to re-introduce various tools to help aid people's communication and understanding. These included pictures, symbols, and easy read documents. ● People's care, treatment and support plans reflected their range of needs and this promoted their wellbeing.

Right Culture ● The registered manager understood the key principles of guidance such as Right support, right care, right culture. However further development was required to help ensure people led inclusive and empowered lives. ● Audits were completed to monitor the service people received. They had identified most, but not all, of the shortfalls we identified during this inspection. The provider and registered manager discussed with us their plans to bring about further improvement in the service and people's quality of life. ● Staff turnover under the previous manager was very high and meant people had not received consistent care from staff who knew them well. Staffing was more stable under the current registered manager's leadership and meant people's consistency of care had improved. However, this needed to be further improved and embedded. ● Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, supporting their preferences to live a quality life of their choosing. However, people had not always supported people to develop aspirations and longer- term goals. ● People and those important to them, including advocates, were involved in planning their care. ● The service enabled people and those important to them to work with staff to develop the service. Staff valued and acted upon people's views. ● Staff felt very well supported by the registered manager who led by example and staff found approachable. ● The service worked in partnership with advocacy and other health and social care professionals who helped to give people using the service a voice and improve their wellbeing

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk