You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 December 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 6 December 2016. At the last inspection on 15 July 2014 the service was meeting the regulations we checked.

Medihands Clifton provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 people who have mental health needs, acquired brain injury or who may be living with dementia. The home is owned and managed by a private individual who has two other care homes in the local area. There were 11 people living at the home on the day we visited, one person was in hospital.

The home had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were safe at the home. The provider took appropriate steps to protect people from abuse, neglect or harm. Training records showed staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk of harm. We saw that people could speak to the registered manager or provider at any time.

Care plans showed that staff assessed the risks to people's health, safety and welfare. Records showed that these assessments included all aspects of a person’s daily life. Where risks were identified, management plans were in place. We saw that regular checks of maintenance and service records were conducted to ensure these were up to date.

We observed that there were sufficient numbers of qualified staff to care for and support people and to meet their needs. We saw that the provider’s staff recruitment process helped to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

People were supported by staff to take their medicines when they needed them and records were kept of medicines taken. Medicines were stored securely and staff received appropriate medicines training to ensure that medicines administration was managed safely.

Staff had the skills, experiences and a good understanding of how to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported through one to one supervision and through staff meetings.

The service had taken appropriate action to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is deemed necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, to protect themselves or others.

Detailed records of the care and support people received were kept. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. People had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them, so their healthcare needs were met.

People were supported by caring staff and we observed people were relaxed with staff who knew them and cared for them. People’s needs were assessed and information from these assessments had been used to plan the care and support they received. People had the opportunity to do what they wanted to do and to choose the activities or events they wanted to attend.

The registered manager had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people’s concerns and complaints. From our discussions with the registered manager, it was clear they had an understanding of their management role and responsibilities and the provider’s legal obligations with regard to CQC.

The home had policies and procedures in place and these were readily available for staff to refer to when necessary. The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Weekly, monthly and annual health and safety and quality assurance audits were conducted by the home.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 December 2016

The service was safe. Staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and the action they needed to take if they witness or have suspicions of abuse taking place. Risk assessments were undertaken to establish any risks present for people who used the service, which helped to protect them.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff to ensure that people received the support they needed. The recruitment practices were safe and ensured staff were suitable for the roles they undertook.

We found the provider had systems in place to protect people against risks associated with the management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 December 2016

The service was effective. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs and preferences. Staff were suitably trained and supported for their caring role and we saw this training put into practice.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of their choice to meet their needs. Staff took appropriate action to ensure people received the care and support they needed from healthcare professionals.

The service had taken the appropriate actions to ensure that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 December 2016

The service was caring. We observed staff treated people with dignity, respect and kindness.

Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s needs, likes, interests and preferences.

People were listened to and there were systems in place to obtain people’s views about their care. People were encouraged and supported by staff to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 December 2016

The service was responsive. Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s needs and these were used to develop care plans for people.

Changes in people’s health and care needs were acted upon to help protect people’s wellbeing.

People we spoke with told us they felt able to raise concerns and would complain if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 December 2016

The service was well-led by an experienced registered manager and the provider.

The provider who was also the owner of the home promoted a high standard of care and support for people to ensure people’s quality of life.

Staff understood the management structure in the home and were aware of their roles and responsibilities. We found there was a friendly welcoming atmosphere to the home.