You are here

Archived: Cranworth Close Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 January 2016

This inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015 and was announced on the first day. The home was previously inspected in October 2013 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Cranworth Close is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It had been a care home accommodating up to 24 people. However, people were gradually moving to supported living and at the time of our inspection there were six people living at the service. The service is situated in Rotherham close to local amenities. It provided nursing and residential care, and at the time of our visit consisted of one house and a central administrative and facilities building. Staff within the service were provided by Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust.

The home had a registered manager. 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 who used the service and their relatives we spoke with told us the service provided good care and support. They told us they felt safe, the staff were caring, considerate and respected their choices and decisions.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if an application was required.

People were involved in menu planning, shopping and meal preparation. We saw people were able to choose what they wanted to eat and there was no set times. There was plenty of choice and snacks available. People had access to drinks as they wanted them.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and spoke to people with understanding, warmth and respect. There was a friendly, homely atmosphere and staff supported people in a kind and caring way that took account of their individual needs and preferences.

People’s needs had been identified, and from our observations, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well. Care records we saw detailed people’s needs and were regularly reviewed.

Recruitment practices ensured that the staff employed were suitable to work with people. Staff received training and support to deliver a good quality of care to people and a training programme was in place to address identified training needs.

There were systems in place for monitoring quality, which were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

The registered manager was aware of how to respond to complaints. Information on how to report complaints was clearly displayed in the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 January 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard people.

Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing were identified and care was planned to minimise the risks.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

There was enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s care needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 January 2016

The service was effective.

People were cared for and supported by staff who had relevant training and skills. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and supporting people to make decisions. The registered manager understood their legal obligations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported with their dietary requirements. Their plans were clear about what they liked and didn’t like and included guidance about any special dietary requirements.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 January 2016

The service was caring

From speaking with people who used the service, their relatives and staff it was evident that all staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and knew people well. We found that staff spoke to people with understanding, kindness and respect, and took into account people’s privacy and dignity.

We saw people were involved in discussions about their care and we saw evidence of this in care files.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 January 2016

The service was responsive

People’s health, care and support needs were assessed and reviewed. We found staff were knowledgeable on people’s needs and people’s needs were met.

People regularly accessed the community and took part in a variety of activities.

There was a complaints system in place. The complaints procedure was available to people who used the service and visitors. People who used the service and their relatives knew how to complain and were comfortable to raise any concerns about the service people received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 January 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post.

There were systems in place for monitoring quality of the service provided. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Staff meetings were held to ensure good communication and sharing of information. The meetings also gave staff opportunity to raise any issues.

People who used the service also had opportunity to attend meetings and were encouraged to give their feedback about the service.