You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 August 2016

We inspected Clubworthy house on the 23 January 2016 the inspection was announced. This was to ensure that the people would be at the service during the inspection. Clubworthy House provides accommodation and personal care for up to two people with a learning disability.

The service has a registered manager in place. 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.

The person who currently lived at Clubworthy House was well cared for , relaxed and comfortable in their home. The person readily approached staff when they wished to be supported and their privacy was consistently respected by staff. We also spoke with a relative who shared with us positive examples of the care and support their family member received from the service. They commented “If you ever want an example of outstanding care, it’s here. They are all about life enhancement.”

People were happy and relaxed on the day of the inspection. The person moved around their home as they wished, interacting with staff and smiling and laughing. Staff were attentive and available. Staff encouraged people to engage in meaningful activity and spoke with them in a friendly and respectful manner. Staff knew the person they supported extremely well and spoke of them with affection.

Staff had high expectations for people and were positive in their attitude to support. The service offered flexible support to people and responded promptly to the person’s decisions and choices.

The service was known to the local community. The person actively participated in local community life and their relative told us, “(person’s name) has been adopted by the local community and that’s thanks to the (registered manager name) and (registered provider name).”

Care plans were informative and contained clear guidance for staff. They included information about people’s routines, personal histories, preferences and any situations which might cause anxiety or stress. Details of how the person wished to be supported with their care needs were highly personalised and provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective support. The person shared their care plan with us. It was presented in written and pictorial formats to enable them to read their plan and be involved in any changes or updates.

Risk assessments were in place for day to day events such participating in sporting sessions. Where activities were done regularly risk assessments were included in people’s care documentation. People had access to a range of activities. These were arranged according to the person’s individual interests and preferences. Staff identified with people future goals and aspirations and worked with the person to achieve them.

Incidents and accidents were recorded. These records were reviewed regularly by all significant parties in order that trends were recognised so that identified risks could be addressed with the aim of minimising them in the future.

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. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the legislation and training was updated regularly.

Support was provided by a small, consistent, motivated and well trained staff team. Staff were well supported and attended and sought out relevant training to enhance their skills. Monthly staff meetings were held which were an opportunity to share any concerns or ideas they had to continuously improve their service. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the person that lived at the service.

There was a robust complaint system in place. There were plenty of opportunities for people, relatives and staff to voice how they felt about the service and any concerns they had. The person was supported to attend an advocacy group which allowed an opportunity to raise any issues.

The registered manager was keen to gather views from people, their relatives and stakeholders to ask for their feedback. Staff were committed to engaging with families who were kept informed of any changes in people’s needs or appointments.

There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility at Clubworthy house The organisational values were embedded in working practices and staff worked to provide a service which was designed around the needs of the individual. The registered manager commented “You’ve got to put your heart and soul into it. My day is to make sure (person’s name) is happy and we try to achieve this.”

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 August 2016

The service was safe. Staff were confident they could keep people safe whilst supporting them to take day to day risks.

Staff had received safeguarding training and were confident about reporting any concerns.

Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 August 2016

The service was effective. Staff attended and sought out training. This meant people were cared for by staff with up to date information and knowledge.

The serviced met the requirements of Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to ensure people’s rights were respected

People were supported to access a range of health services as necessary which meant their day to day health needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 August 2016

The service was caring. Staff spoke about people fondly and demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Staff valued family relationships and helped ensure they were sustained

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 August 2016

The service was responsive. Care plans were detailed and informative and regularly updated

The person living at the home was actively encouraged and supported to engage with the local community, and participate in their chosen activities.

There was a satisfactory complaints procedure in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 August 2016

The service was well-led. There was a clear ethos in place which focussed on ensuring people had both fulfilling lives and experiences.

The service was open and worked collaboratively with other professionals to help ensure the person’s health and care needs were met.

There was a robust system of quality assurance checks in place. People and their relatives were regularly consulted about how the service was

run.