Archived: Clinton Lodge

The service was led effectively by a recently appointed registered manager with support from the provider’s nominated individual, who had previously been the registered manager. Staff said they were well supported by their managers. One staff member commented, “[The registered manager] is brilliant, so easy to work with.” A relative told us, “Both [the nominated individual and the registered manger] are really good people.”

Most of the people we met had limited verbal communication skills. However, people did tell us they were happy and enjoyed living at Clinton Lodge. Relatives told us, “The quality of the care is unbelievable” and “I wish every care home could be the quality of Clinton Lodge. It is really well run”.

One relative who was visiting on the day of our inspection told us, “[Person’s name] has chosen to stay here because he feels safe. We want to go out but he doesn’t. He has never done that before.”

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments had been completed and staff were provided with guidance on how to ensure people’s safety while encouraging independence. Regular fire drills had been completed and emergency evacuation plans which described how to support each person in the event of an emergency had been developed.

Staff had the skills and experience necessary to meet people care needs. Training was updated regularly and tailored to staff needs by the provider’s training lead. Staff told us, “Everything is refreshed six monthly or yearly depending on the course” and “I could not name all the training we do there is so much of it.” New staff received formal induction training and completed a minimum of three supernumerary shifts with each person before they were permitted to provide support independently.

Recruitment practices were robust and the service was consistently staffed appropriately to meet people’s care needs. On the day of our inspection each person was supported by their own member of staff. Staff rotas showed these staffing levels were routinely achieved and that each day a supernumerary manager was available within the service to provide additional support if required. Staff told us, “We always have enough staff” and “They always make sure it is covered if someone is sick. We never have a situation where we have less people than needed.”

Mangers and staff understood the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the importance of respecting people’s decisions and choices. Staff involved people in decision making throughout the day of our inspection and told us, “I involve my clients in everything. I like to make sure I offer three choices. I think people like to be involved” and “[Person’s name] tells you what he wants. He understands that he can choose.” One relative told us, “[Person’s name] is having his own life here. He is making his own decisions.”

Staff knew people well and understood their individual care and support needs. People’s care plans provided staff with detailed information on their individual likes and preferences. This included details of normal routines and information on how to provide support to help people to manage anxiety. Staff told us, “There is enough information in them, they tell you everything. [The person’s] past, their daily routines, night routines everything is in there.” Each person’s care plans also included detailed information on their individual communication preference and staff were able to communicate effectively with the people they supported.

People lived active and varied lives. They were routinely supported to access the local community and encouraged to try new activities. On the day of our inspection three people were away from the service for most of the day engaged with activities they enjoyed. Two people had chosen to staff in the service and these choices where respected. Relative told us it was sometime difficult to contact people as they were so often away from the service participating in different activities. One person’s relative told us, “They are very much focused on his experiences. They took him to laser tag the other day. I would never have thought of that.” People were regularly supported to engage in activities in the evening and staff told us, “We change shift times around people’s needs” and “There is never a problem with evening activities.”

The service’s quality assurance systems worked well and were used to drive continuous improvements in performance. Audits were completed regularly and action taken promptly where any issue were identified. People and their relatives were actively encouraged to provide feedback and the service regularly received compliments and thankyou letters from people’s relatives. In addition, the service used “Out in the community” feedback forms to gather views from local people and businesses on its performance. Responses received were consistently complimentary and included, “The young lady had a lovely caring manner. She listened to the young man, gave him choice and respected his decisions. A pleasure to hear” and “Good attentive care given - impressed!!!”

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out this inspection on 11 November 2015. This was the first inspection for the service since it registered in February 2015.

Relatives told us they were happy with the care and support their family member received and believed it was a safe environment. One relative said, “I don’t worry when I leave [person’s name] because I know they are safe and happy.”

People living in the service had limited verbal communication and were not able to tell us their views about the care and support they received. However, we observed people were relaxed and at ease with staff, and when they needed help or support they turned to staff without hesitation.

Support was provided by a consistent staff team who knew people well and understood their needs. People were supported to access the local community and take part in a range of activities of their choice. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty and staffing levels were adjusted to meet people’s changing needs and wishes.

Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge. Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse.

People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and received on-going healthcare support. People had access to an annual health screening to maintain their health. Specialist services such as occupational therapists and dieticians were used when required. Relatives told us they were confident that the service could meet people’s health needs. One relative said, “Since living at Clinton Lodge [person’s name] has physically improved, is eating better and has gained weight.”

People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet. People were involved in meal planning. Menu planning was done in a way which combined healthy eating with the choices people made about their food. The kitchen had been designed with some lower work surfaces so people with wheelchairs could help with meal preparation and cooking.

Care records were up to date, had been regularly reviewed, and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs. Details of how people wished to be supported were personalised to the individual and provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective support. Any risks in relation to people’s care and support were identified and appropriately managed.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People and their families were given information about how to complain. There was a management structure in the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There was a positive culture in the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. Staff said, “It’s a good organisation to work for”, “I enjoy what I do” and “We have regular team meetings.”

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Senior management were visible in the service and regularly visited to check if people were happy and safe living at Clinton Lodge.