You are here

Archived: Cranworth Close Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 & 7 December 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 28 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

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.

Inspection carried out on 10 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our visit we went to three of the four houses. All of the people who lived at the fourth house had gone out to celebrate the birthday of one of the people who lived there. We met with several people who lived at Cranworth Close, some of whom were able to tell us their views. One person pointed at a member of care staff and said "I like her," another person said "It's nice here," and another told us; “They help me with some things I need because I can’t do everything for myself.”

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.

Inspection carried out on 16 October 2012

During a routine inspection

Some of the people who were using the service at the time of the inspection were able to share their views with us. One person said “I like it here” and another person told us “staff are nice.”

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.

Inspection carried out on 29 December 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with some of the people using services at Cranworth Close, and observed care procedures and activities taking place. People told us that they were happy at Cranworth Close. One person said “the staff are nice, we have a good laugh” and another person told us “it’s nice, I’ve been here a long time, I like it”. We saw that staff promoted choice and involvement and ensured people’s dignity and privacy were upheld.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)