You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Cranmore. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 November 2017

This inspection took place on 2 October 2017 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out in August 2016 when concerns were identified about recruitment processes, staff supervision, managing people's goals and aspirations and ineffective quality monitoring systems. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Cranmore is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have a learning disability and other complex needs. Cranmore is a detached house situated on the outskirts of New Romney. The service had a communal lounge and dining area available with comfortable seating and a TV for people, each person had their own bedroom, decorated and furnished to suit their needs and preference. There was a secure enclosed garden to the rear of the premises. Building works were nearing completion at the time of our inspection to an extension adjoining the main house.

The service had a registered manager, who was present throughout the inspection. 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.

A robust system to recruit new staff was in place; this helped to make sure that people were supported by staff that were fit to do so. Throughout the day and night there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s assessed needs. When staff first started to work at the service they were supported to complete an induction programme. Staff continued to be supported with on going training, support and supervision. Staff meetings took place. These all gave opportunity for staff to share ideas and discuss any issues.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they should. People were supported to maintain good health and attended appointments and check-ups. Health needs were kept under review and referrals were made when required. People were supported in a safe environment and risks had been identified, and were managed in a way that enabled and encouraged people to live as independent a life as possible.

Records were in good order and contained current information that was clearly laid out; making them easy to use.

Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse. They had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed.

Equipment and the premises received regular checks and servicing in order to ensure it was safe. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, the staff knew what to do.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Systems were in place to check if people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty. Systems were in operation to obtain consent from people and to comply with the MCA. People were supported to make decisions and choices about all aspects of their lives.

Staff encouraged people to be involved and feel included in their environment. People were offered activities and participated in social activities when they chose to do so. Staff knew people and their support needs well. The care and support needs of each person were different, and each person’s care plan was personal to them. People had detailed care plans, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 November 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm and abuse. Assessments had been made to minimise personal and environmental risks to people.

People received their medicines when they needed them and in a way that was safe. They were stored safely.

There were enough staff on duty to meet peoples’ needs. Appropriate checks were made when employing new staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training, supervision and support to have the skills and knowledge they needed to be effective in their roles.

Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent and giving people choice.

People’s health was monitored and staff ensured people had access to external healthcare professionals when they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 November 2017

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well, were kind, caring and compassionate and had developed positive relationships with people and their family members.

Staff spoke with people in a caring, dignified and compassionate way.

People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity.

Staff encouraged and supported people to maintain relationships with their families.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 November 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records gave clear guidance and were reflective of people’s individual needs.

People took part in a variety of activities and social events.

People and relatives knew how to raise a concern or complaint and felt listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 November 2017

The service was well-led.

Records were accurate, in good order and stored securely.

Audits and checks were in place. They were effective in identifying shortfalls.

Feedback had been sought from people, relatives and staff and suggestions for improvement were acted on.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and felt supported.