Doncaster care home is rated good overall but requires improvement in one area

A Doncaster care home has been rated good overall but requires improvement in one area following a visit by the Care Quality Commission.

Manor View Care Home on Manor Road in Hatfield is run by Laso Health Care Ltd and was assessed between March 15 and May 23, 2025.

The service is a nursing and residential care home providing support to older people living with dementia and nursing needs. At the time of our assessment there were 19 people living there.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The inspector’s report states: “We carried out a comprehensive assessment of the service covering all 5 key questions – Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led – and all quality statements to follow up on concerns identified at the previous assessment in June 2024.

Manor View Care Home.placeholder image
Manor View Care Home.

“At this assessment we found the provider had made improvements and was on the right trajectory towards continued improvement. ​The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in relation to staff and good governance. Improvements have been made, and we saw evidence of these improvements at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

“Audits were completed and reviewed but themes, trends or lessons learned were not always identified and used to improve practice. There was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The provider shared safeguarding concerns quickly and appropriately.

“However, there was limited analysis of safeguarding incidents to identify themes, trends and lessons learned and how these would be shared with staff to make and sustain improvements to care and support.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The care environment was clean and staff has access to appropriate stores of personal protective equipment (PPE). People's needs were assessed and reviews took place. Care plans evidenced people had access to health care professionals such as GPs and occupational therapists (OTs).”

It continued: “People had access to local health and care services to support them to manage their wellbeing. The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent; however, they did respect people’s rights when delivering care and treatment. Staff were kind and caring in their interactions and responded to people in a timely way.

“The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

“The service worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. People’s end of life care wishes were recorded in their care plans. Improvement had been made since the previous assessment but changes and developments needed to be embedded and sustained to ensure continued improvement.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Feedback regarding the service from residents and families was mixed. Some people who lived in the care home were happy with their care and support.

The report said: “One person’s family told us, “[Person’s] needs are met, they are happy, well looked after and the food is good.”

However, another person’s family told us, “[Person] is safe but it could be better. I sometimes think [the staff] don’t give the time to people they need.”

“We were told about falls and incidents which had happened in the care home. One relative told us, “[Person] has had one or two accidents but [the staff] do what they need to do and then call me.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Another family member told us, “[Person] has had two falls while they have been in here; the first time they were in the lounge and the second time they was in the toilet and broke her hip. Both times [the staff] rang 999 and then rang me.”

“People told us they liked the food and it was good quality. A family member said, “The meals are lovely, [person] is vegetarian and they are really good with them – they got her ‘not chicken’ goujons and they were very nice. The puddings are excellent. [Person] went through a stage of losing weight but she is putting it back on now.”

Family members gave mixed feedback about being involved in care plans. One relative said, “I am aware of [the care plan]; the [Local Authority] rang me last week and asked if I want a copy of it.” Another family member told us, “When [person] had a fall, [staff] put a new [care plan] together. The physio was there a couple of times and the nurse helped move their legs and chased the delivery of their chair. I was told they had updated the [care plan].” However, another relative said, “No I am not aware [of person’s care plan]. [Staff] have shown me things in the past but I don’t know what they were.”

“When we asked about leadership and management of the service, we received mixed feedback. Comments from families included, “From what I have seen, yes [it is well managed].” and, “Yes I do [think it is well managed].” Other feedback about the management team included, “I don’t know! [The registered manager] is not very approachable for the staff.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I think they have a hard time trying to run the home with the provider telling them to do this and that.” When we asked family members about what could be improved, they told us, “I don’t have a clue, it may need decorating.” and, “There was no problem when [person] was in [Church View Unit], all these things have come about since [the provider] moved [person] into the [Manor View Unit] – things could be better.”

Related topics:

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1925
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice