Archived: Cranworth Close

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were given guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely, and detailed risk assessments and records were in place to ensure people received the care and support they required. There were appropriate arrangements in place to identify abuse and protect people from the risk of abuse.

Appropriate checks were carried out before staff commenced employment.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Care plans contained assessments of people's care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met. Evidence we checked showed that staff were following people's care plans and risk assessments.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with praised the service. One said: 'They [the staff] are all nice. They're my favourites.' Staff we observed knew people well and understood their needs and preferences.

Is the service responsive?

Where the provider identified areas for improvement, these were implemented. Staffing changes had been implemented to improve the way that people's leisure needs were met.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where audits of all aspects of the service were carried out. This was thorough, and where action was required we saw it was implemented.

We observed staff interacting with people in a relaxed, friendly and respectful manner. Staff responded immediately when people spoke to them or gave any indication they wanted attention.

Staff we spoke with said they enjoyed working at the service.

We saw people's care plans were up to date and included detailed information about the person, their lifestyle, needs and preferences.

We saw there were high standards of cleanliness in the houses we visited and staff followed infection control guidelines.

We looked at systems for managing medicines in two of the houses and found they were safe.

Staffing was arranged to meet the needs of the people who lived in the houses. However, we asked the provider to note that we identified a minor issue when staff were undertaking training or escorting people to activities outside the home.

Complaints were managed appropriately.

Formal assessments of people's capacity to consent to care had taken place, in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act. In situations where people could not consent to their care, the provider had arranged meetings known as "best interest" meetings to ensure that the care provided was in people's best interests.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People's records were up to date and regularly reviewed so that they remained current and reflected people's care and support needs. Each care plan that we checked contained a good level of detail, so that staff understood how to deliver care to ensure people's needs were met.

All the staff employed at the location received regular supervision from their line manager. This was used to discuss staff development, the welfare and support needs of people using the service and they way that staff carried out their roles.

We gave feedback at the inspection about some areas where attention was required, including ensuring that incidents were correctly recorded and reported.