Langham Manor

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated as requires improvement. This meant that some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was a risk that people could be harmed.

The provider did not ensure that the staff received the required training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge needed to support people’s needs. The storage and administration of people’s medicines needed strengthening. Shortfalls had been identified with the fire safety systems for a significant period and this had not been prioritised or addressed. Whilst we did not see any evidence of negative impact to people, the risk of harm was possible.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. Whilst we received some variable feedback on there being enough staff, most people told us that they received the care they needed. Risks were assessed and systems in place to mitigate risks and monitor people’s needs. This included the provision of specialist mattresses and regular repositioning to promote skin integrity The registered manager had systems and processes in place to review falls, unintentional weight loss, accidents and pressure injuries. Incidents and accidents were reviewed to identify any trends or themes.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s nutrition and weights were monitored, and they were supported to live healthily however, feedback on the quality of the meals was inconsistent.

People told us that staff gave them choices and explained what they were doing before giving care. Staff understood that if a person was assessed as not able to make a decision, then staff could support in their best interest. However, they were less clear about the process to follow for complex decisions and restrictions.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People told us that they were treated with kindness and that staff cared about them. Interactions observed between staff and people living in the service were warm and positive.

People were supported to access a wide range of social activities to promote their wellbeing and there were no restrictions on visiting. The environment promoted people’s independence and the layout of the home enabled people to decide where they would like to spend their time.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People told us that they were supported appropriately by staff and received good care. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as individuals. However, this was not always reflected in people’s care records which did consistently provide details of triggers, or actions that staff should take to support people in distress. The registered manager told us that they had already identified these shortfalls and had a plan to address them.

There was a complaints process in place and findings were shared where necessary, to drive improvements.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent and did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance. Audits to monitor and improve the home were undertaken and included reports to the providers head office. However, these audits and checks were not always effective as they had not identified or always acted promptly on the findings. For example, we identified shortfalls in fire safety and staff training.

The registered manager had managed the service since it had opened in July 2023 and was supported by a deputy manager and a clinical lead. The registered manager was a visible presence undertaking daily walk arounds and overseeing the daily head of department meetings. The registered manager and regional manager responded positively to our feedback and immediately acted to address some of the areas we identified.