CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cornelia Manor RCH
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, safe admissions, cleaning and visiting arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Not rated; a targeted inspection found infection-control arrangements in place and examples of good practice.
Inspectors visited on 3 March 2021. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They found systems for PPE, hand hygiene, cleaning, testing, safe admissions and visits. They were assured that the home was taking steps to prevent and manage infections.
People were supported to understand the safety measures. Inspectors also found enough staff to provide continuity of support and safeguards if there was a staff shortage.
This was not a full inspection and the home was not given an overall quality rating. Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Infection control planning
The home had processes to reduce the risk of infections for people, staff and visitors. Its infection-control policy had been updated during the pandemic.
“The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes in place to minimise the risks to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had COVID-19 training and understood the need to use suitable PPE and maintain additional cleaning.
“Staff had completed training about COVID-19 and understood the importance of wearing appropriate PPE and ensuring all additional cleaning measures were maintained.” from the report
Safe admissions and testing
People were admitted with a 14-day period of self-isolation. The home arranged regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff.
“People were admitted safely and self-isolated for 14 days, in accordance with national guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are designated visitors currently arranged, and what safeguards are used during visits?
- 02How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03How do you manage a new person's 14-day self-isolation after admission?
- 04What PPE, hand-washing and cleaning checks are carried out each day?
- 05What staffing safeguards are used if there is a staff shortage?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2021 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, January 2020
Cornelia Manor RCH was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some medicines, falls and record-keeping improvements needed.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and external professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found a warm and homely environment, enough staff, suitable care plans, good support with food and healthcare, and a wide range of activities.
There were some issues, but the registered manager acted during the inspection. Recording the times of as-needed medicines was improved. Falls procedures and records of best-interest decisions were also updated.
The previous overall rating, published in 2017, was Good. The Safe rating had previously been Requires Improvement and had improved to Good at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly, compassionate support. People were treated with dignity, and staff knew their preferences and personal histories.
“We observed many kind and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, likes and dislikes. Staff understood how to support people as individuals.
“People's likes, dislikes and preferences were recorded in their care plans that were reviewed and updated, when needed.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction, training, supervision and appraisals were in place.
“The service had a well-established and stable staff team, who had received training that equipped them to effectively meet people's need and provide person-centred care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities and maintain relationships with relatives and community groups.
“People had access to a range of activities, including, movement to music, art sessions, mini-bus trips out to the seaside, visits from a local donkey sanctuary and reminiscence sessions.” from the report
Responsive management
The management team carried out regular checks and acted promptly when inspectors identified issues.
“All completed audits were shared with the provider and action plans with timescales were completed, when required.” from the report
As-needed medicines records
seriousTimes were not always recorded when as-needed medicines were given. This could have meant doses were given too close together, although the manager took immediate action.
“This meant that people could be given medicines without the required amount of time between each dose.” from the report
Unwitnessed falls
seriousBest practice for monitoring people after an unwitnessed fall was not being followed. The home's falls procedures and risk assessments were updated during the inspection.
“However, we saw that when people had falls that were unwitnessed, best practice to monitor the person for a potential head injury was not followed.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingRecords did not always show when best-interest decisions had been made for people who could not make particular decisions themselves. The records were corrected during the inspection.
“However, records did not always demonstrate where best interest decisions had been made for people.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the exact time that each as-needed medicine is given?
- 02What checks are carried out after someone has an unwitnessed fall, and how is this recorded?
- 03How do you document best-interest decisions for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's health or support needs change?
- 05Which activities are available, and how do you make sure they reflect each person's interests and choices?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the Safe rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
Every inspection of Cornelia Manor RCH
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2010.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.