We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cliffdale Rest Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cliffdale Rest Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Cliffdale rest home is a residential care home providing personal care to 22 people at the time of the inspection. The home is able to support up to 27 older people.
CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The governance systems in place had not ensured compliance with all health and safety regulations. The provider took immediate action to ensure the building was safe. However, the provider needs to improve how they ensure the building maintains compliance with all regulations.
Risks to people’s safety were assessed and action was taken to mitigate the risk of harm. Where appropriate lessons had been learnt when things went wrong to ensure accidents did not reoccur.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and protected from abuse by staff who had received appropriate training. People received their medicine as prescribed.
People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving to the service. They were supported to access health care and the provider worked with other professionals to ensure effective care. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were complimentary of the food provided.
Staff received training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to carry out their duties. The building was decorated to a good standard and improvements continued to be made.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with kindness and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and their independence maintained, which included engaging in activities in the community.
People’s care plans were personalised to them and their known relationships and interests were actively promoted.
People’s needs under the accessible information standard were assessed and people had access to a complaint’s procedure should they need to use it.
At the time of inspection no one was receiving end of life care. However, the systems were in place to ensure the service could provide the increased level of care.
The provider and the registered manager had a clear vision for the service and everyone we spoke to was aware of what the vision was. Both parties understood their duty of candour and worked with others to improve outcomes and ensure there was continuous learning.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating of this service was requires improvement (published 6 March 2019).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People told us they felt safe and happy and the service was their home.
There were ineffective measures in place at the home to ensure the risk of infection and cross contamination was prevented and/or minimised. The building, furniture and environment was not always clean and well maintained. Although these risks were mitigated following our inspection, this meant the provider had not always managed the risks associated with people living at the home. There were quality assurance systems in place to assist the provider to monitor and improve its care and treatment of people. However, the provider did not always take the immediate and appropriate action to implement changes at the home, when improvements were identified.
There were safeguarding systems and processes in places that sought to protect people from harm. Staff knew the signs of abuse and what to do if they suspected it. There were sufficient staff in place, all of whom had passed safe recruitment procedures to ensure they were suitable for the role. There were systems in place to monitor people's safety and promote their health and wellbeing, these included personal risk assessments and care plans. The provider ensured that when things went wrong, incidents and accidents were recorded and lesson were learned.
People needs were assessed before moving to the home so the provider knew whether they could meet the person's needs. Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to fulfil their roles, received training and were supported through regular performance reviews. People were prompted to eat and drink healthily and could choose what foods they wanted to eat. People were supported to have choice in their daily lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People were treated kindly and compassionately by staff. People and their relatives were supported to express their views and make decisions about the care and treatment they received. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.
People received personalised care, having their support needs and preferences detailed in their care plans. People were supported to lead fulfilled lives through activities of their choice. The provider had a complaints policy and process in place; people and their relatives told us they would feel comfortable raising complaints. When people were at the end of their life, the provider worked with them to meet their wishes and preferences.
People and staff thought highly of the registered manager and that the service was well managed. Staff knew their roles and understood what was expected of them. The registered manager knew their responsibilities in ensuring people received a safe, high quality service. People and staff were engaged in the service and their opinions were sought.
At this inspection we found the evidence did not continue to support a rating of ‘Good’ in all areas, we have rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ in Safe and Well Led. More information is available in our 'Detailed Findings' below.
Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection in March 2016 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. However, this rating was awarded to the previous provider. A new provider had taken over the service in July 2018.
About the service: Cliffdale Rest Home is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 27 people. At the time of the inspection 21 people lived at the home.
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
The provider of Cliffdale Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 27 people. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were kept safe because the registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report potential harm and abuse. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were known by staff and well managed. The registered manager and staff maintained close links with external healthcare professionals to promote people's health.
People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff. The registered manager reviewed people's individual requirements and ensured staffing levels were suitable to meet their needs. The registered manager made all the appropriate checks on new staff's suitability to work at the service. People's medicines were managed, stored and administered by staff who had received the correct training to promote safe practices. Staff understood how to care for people because they received a good induction where they shadowed experienced staff until they knew people well.
People were offered meals which were met their preferences and provided a choice of different meals. People were supported to eat and drink enough by staff who understood the importance of a balanced diet.
People were cared for by staff who knew them well and who they described as kind and caring. We saw very positive interactions between people and staff which respected people's dignity and privacy. Staff responded to people's individual likes and dislikes and supported people to follow their own interests.
People knew how to raise any concerns and who they should report any concerns to. The registered manager was proactive in maintaining communication with people and their relatives so that any concerns were discussed and action taken straight away.
The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and had developed systems to monitor the quality of the service people received. The registered manager was continually looking at how they provided care for people and how this could be improved. In doing so they showed that they valued people's views about the services provided and used these to improve and further develop the services provided for people.
People told us that they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. Staff told us about the training that the home had arranged for them to attend so that they would recognise abuse and how to report it.
People told us that staff were always available when they needed help. They said that the staff were friendly and always acted professionally. One person said, 'I'm very satisfied' and another said 'I couldn't be better cared for'.
People told us that they were satisfied with the service provided at the home. People said that the staff were very nice and looked after them well.
People said that they were supported by staff to see medical and healthcare professionals promptly whenever necessary.
Staff were observed to be courteous and respectful towards people and worked hard to meet people's needs.
People were seen as individuals and their lifestyle choices and values respected.
Care records were well kept and contained up to date information about people's needs but there was no written evidence that people were involved in decision making about their care.
Systems were in place to make sure that people were kept safe at the home.
There was no ongoing redecoration and refurbishment programme. Several areas of the home and garden were in poor condition and did not offer a comfortable environment for people who used the service. This had also impacted on the risk of cross infection as equipment had not been replaced.
Recruitment processes were in place to make sure that staff were suitable to work at the home.
The home actively sought the views of people who lived, worked and visited the home but there was no written evidence that issues raised or suggestions made were acted on.