CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Manor House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines systems. Accidents and incidents were reviewed so action could be taken to reduce future risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home assessed people's needs before they moved in and provided staff training and competency checks. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. They involved people and relatives in care planning and encouraged people to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and were updated when needs changed. Activities, communication support and a complaints process were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive management, good staff morale and open communication. The provider used audits, questionnaires, feedback and an action plan to monitor care quality.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a new manager not yet registered.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. They also found kind staff, personalised care, good activities and positive support for people's independence.
The home had a thorough assessment process, freshly prepared food and systems for involving relatives and responding to complaints. Managers and the provider used audits, feedback and an action plan to monitor and improve the service. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 15 August 2017.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had training, supervision and recruitment checks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. People and their relatives felt, and our observations confirmed there were enough staff to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's histories and preferences. They supported privacy, dignity and independence in everyday care.
“Staff knew people well and had good relationships with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was adapted to people's communication, interests, background and changing needs. The home offered group and one-to-one activities.
“The service employed activities staff to support people to engage in activities both in groups and on a one to one basis.” from the report
Strong monitoring
The provider and managers used audits, feedback and an action plan to monitor the quality of care and make improvements.
“There was a robust process in place to monitor the quality of care including audits of care, health and safety, environment, night cover and home security.” from the report
Manager registration was not yet complete
minorAt the inspection, the home did not have a manager registered with the CQC. A new manager had started but had not yet submitted an application.
“A new manager had recently started in post but had not yet submitted their application to become the registered manager.” from the report
- 01How will the new manager's registration application be progressed, and who is legally responsible for the home while this is outstanding?
- 02How would you assess and support my relative's specific needs before they move in?
- 03How are changes in a person's care needs shared with all staff between shifts?
- 04What activities and one-to-one support would be available if my relative preferred to stay in their room?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning and respond if we raised a complaint?
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Manor House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some minor issues in records, communication and dietary guidance.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, managers and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and kind relationships. People were supported with their choices, health needs, activities and contact with family.
The home remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection. Inspectors identified some minor improvements, including clearer guidance about one person's skin care and lactose intolerance, more robust recruitment checklists, and better communication between staff.
People felt safe
People and visitors told inspectors they felt safe. Inspectors saw enough staff to respond to call bells promptly.
“There continued to be enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff developed warm relationships and supported people's dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw staff reassuring people when they were anxious or distressed.
“Staff had continued to develop warm and compassionate relationships with people and promoted their privacy, dignity and independence.” from the report
Care matched people's lives
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and routines. People could choose how they spent their time and could involve family in care discussions.
“The acting manager and staff members were able to describe people's preferences, like and dislikes.” from the report
Management checks
Directors visited regularly, reviewed the service and gathered views from people and visitors. The home had support arrangements while the registered manager was temporarily absent.
“There were effective systems for checking and monitoring the quality and safety of the service, which took into account people's views.” from the report
Some care guidance was incomplete
needs fixingOne person's skin care records did not explain how staff should reduce the risk, although staff knew what to do. Inspectors also suggested using the recruitment checklist more thoroughly.
“Although care records for maintaining one person's skin integrity did not indicate how staff were to support them to minimise this risk, staff knew what to do.” from the report
Dietary information needed to be clearer
needs fixingInspectors found uncertainty about lactose intolerance. A visitor said the wrong milk had sometimes been given and that the person had received ice cream they should not have had.
“We concluded that people had enough to eat and drink but that the area of food intolerance would benefit from further guidance and exploration with care and catering staff.” from the report
Communication could be better
needs fixingA staff member and a visitor said communication sometimes went astray. One visitor reported that a person was not ready for an appointment despite telling three different staff members.
“I am not always happy about the communication between staff … I had told three different people about an appointment time and the importance of it and still [person] wasn't ready when I came to collect [person].” from the report
Minor medicines recording error
minorA staff member signed a medicines record before giving the medicine. Inspectors described this as a minor shortfall in administration practice.
“We noted one minor shortfall in administration practice when a staff member signed the medicine record before they gave a person their medicines.” from the report
Statement of Purpose needed updating
minorThe home's Statement of Purpose did not fully reflect that some people living there had dementia.
“The home's Statement of Purpose needs revising to reflect that.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure staff follow each person's dietary requirements, including lactose intolerance?
- 02How do you check that care records clearly explain how to manage risks such as pressure areas?
- 03What has changed to improve communication about appointments and changes in people's care?
- 04How do you check medicines records are signed only after medicines have been given?
- 05Who is currently managing the home, and what support is in place when the registered manager is absent?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, and the home remained Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 2017 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 Manor House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.