We carried out a review of the data available to us about Clearbury 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 Clearbury, you can give feedback on this service.
At the last inspection on 26 May and 5 June 2015 the service was rated Good overall. Safe was rated as Requires Improvement. Improvements were required in relation to the safe management of medicines. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. However we have made a recommendation to ensure good practice is maintained.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.
Why the service is rated good:
People continued to receive a safe service. Staff knew their responsibilities to protect people from harm and abuse. Risks associated with people’s care and support were assessed to help them to remain safe. People received their medicines safely; however we have made a recommendation to promote good practice. Sufficient staff were available at all times to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely to ensure staff were suitable to work with people.
People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training on how to support the person to meet their needs. The registered manager and management team had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to health and social care services was made when required.
People were supported by staff who knew them well and who were kind and compassionate. People’s dignity and privacy was maintained and staff communicated with people in ways that were important to them. People were supported to develop and maintain their skills and were involved in decisions about their support where they could.
People received responsive and personalised care that was based on their needs, preferences and interests. Their support plans were focused on them as individuals and staff had up to date guidance about each person’s preferences and support requirements. People had opportunities to take part in a variety of activities they enjoyed.
There was good management oversight of the service. The provider had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis. Records were well organised, up to date and stored confidentially.
This unannounced inspection took place on 26 May 2015. We returned on 5 June 2015 with a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter so we could speak to people using the service and staff.
Clearbury provides a long-term period of residential care with therapeutic support for up to four people between the ages of 16 and 25 who are either profoundly deaf or who have significant hearing loss and complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at Clearbury.
When we visited 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.
Medicines management had not always been effective, but had improved by time we returned on 5 June 2015.
People said they felt safe and staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised. Risk management was important to ensure people’s safety. Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. People’s rights were protected because the home followed the appropriate processes.
People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences and their views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. They were supported to maintain a balanced diet and encouraged to be involved in preparing meals with staff support. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the right care and treatment.
Staff relationships with people were strong, caring and supportive. Through our observations and discussions, we found that staff were motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and compassionate.
Staffing arrangements, which included recruitment, were flexible in order to meet people’s individual needs. Staff received a range of training and regular support to keep their skills up to date in order to support people appropriately. Staff spoke positively about communication and how the manager worked well with them, encouraged team working and an open culture.
A number of effective methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received.