Manor Cottage was last visited by the Care Quality Commission in April 2011. At that visit, we (the Care Quality Commission) found that Manor Cottage was not meeting one or more essential standards and that improvements were needed. During this inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made.The owner, Mr Peek is currently at the home daily, overseeing the management of the home. He told us that he is advertising for a new manager.
This inspection took place over two days and three inspectors were involved.
People we spoke with said they felt well treated and their privacy and dignity were respected. We saw examples of where people were being treated with respect by staff. We saw a privacy screen in place in one double occupancy room.
We looked at some care records to see how people's care was planned and delivered. One person told us that he was "happy here. The staff are all friendly". He also told us that his care needs were being met and the staff allowed him to be independent, which he liked.
At our last visit we found that care and treatment was not being planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. We found that improvements had been made, but this was not reflected in the recordings we saw.
We looked at the care records for four of the people who lived in the home to find out how the home had assessed their health and personal care needs, and how they planned to meet those needs. Each person had a care file that contained a range of documents relating to their care and support needs.
Staff told us they were made aware of any changes to people's needs at handovers but they also told us they rarely looked at the care plans. We saw some evidence that care plans were reviewed and updated. We looked at the daily recordings for people. We saw that these 'evaluation sheets' were completed during the morning, afternoon, evening and night time. However, we looked at these around 11am and saw that some recordings stated the person had 'drinks given throughout morning and checked on' another stated 'sat in lounge listening to music till lunch', but lunch was not till 12.30pm. This gave the impression that staff were writing records for events before they happened.
Following our visit we spoke on the telephone with a visiting social care professional who was also monitoring the care at the home. They told us that they felt things had improved at the home and that people's needs were being met.
Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and what they would do if they suspected abuse was occurring. However, the provider may wish to note that one staff member told us that they had not received any training in this area and another told us they were unaware of the home's safeguarding or Whistleblowing policies.
We toured the communal areas of the home and looked in some of the bedrooms. The home was generally clean and tidy throughout. However, the provider may wish to note that some areas of the kitchen were very dirty.
We found that there had been improvements to the way medicines were handled since our previous visit. We saw that medicines were kept safely, and that there were new systems for storing controlled drugs correctly, and suitable arrangements for medicines needing cold storage in a refrigerator.
People that we spoke with praised all the staff who work at the home. We also spoke with the staff and observed them while they provided care and support to people who use the service. We heard staff speaking with people in a kind and respectful manner and they responded promptly, discreetly and sensitively to people when they asked questions or needed help.
On our second visit there were 17 people living at the home with three care staff on duty and a cook and cleaner. The owner of the home was also present.
People's care records were not always accurate and up to date. We saw that in some cases risk assessments relating to people's health care needs had not been fully completed and therefore people were at risk of receiving inappropriate care or treatment.