We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cinnamon House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cinnamon House, you can give feedback on this service.
50 Belle Vue Grove is a detached residential care home providing personal care for up to five people living with learning disabilities. At the time of inspection three people were living at the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe and happy living at 50 Belle Vue Grove. People and a relative said staff were supportive and listened to them. Risks to people were thoroughly assessed and staff took measures to reduce those identified. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse. They were recruited using systems to reduce the risk of unsuitable candidates being employed.
Staff had the right skills and knowledge to deliver care and support in a person-centred way. They received the appropriate training and support to carry out their roles well.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s health needs were met. The service worked with a range of professionals to best meet people’s needs.
People’s care and support was based on their individual needs and choices. They were encouraged by staff to maintain and develop their hobbies and attend events that interested them. People were encouraged and supported to actively play a part in their local community.
The service was well led with an established staff team. The provider and staff team ensured people and staff contributed towards the running of the service.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 30 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
50 Belle Vue Grove is a large detached house situated within a suburb of Middlesbrough. It is within walking distance of local amenities. The property has a large garden and patio and bedrooms across both floors. There are also a number of bathrooms, one of which is a wet room. Belle Vue Grove provides accommodation for people who have learning disabilities, broad spectrum autism and mental health needs. There were five people living there at the time of our inspection
Risks to people arising from their health and support needs as well as the premises were assessed, and plans were in place to minimise them.
There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff told us they received training to be able to carry out their role. Staff received effective supervision and a yearly appraisal.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.
Staff understood the importance of ensuring people agreed to the care and support they provided and when to involve others to help people make important decisions. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were cared for by staff that were trained in recognising and understanding how to report potential abuse. Staff felt confident to raise any concerns they had in order to keep people safe.
People enjoyed a good choice of meals and were supported to maintain a healthy diet.
The service worked with external professionals to support and maintain people’s health.
Throughout the inspection there was lots of laughter between people and staff. The interactions between people and staff showed that staff knew the people well.
Care was planned and delivered in way that responded to people’s assessed needs. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s personal preferences and wishes
Staff showed us that they knew the interests, likes and dislikes of people and people were supported to enjoy various activities. We saw that staff ensured that they were respectful of people's choices and decisions.
The service had a clear complaints policy that was applied when issues arose.
The registered manager was actively involved in monitoring standards and promoting good practice. The service had quality assurance systems in place which were used to drive continuous improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection visit took place on 26 and 27 March 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service on 4 June 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
50 Belle Vue Grove, also called Cinnamon House is a large detached house situated within a suburb of Middlesbrough. It is within walking distance of local amenities. The property has a large garden and patio and bedrooms across both floors. There are also a number of bathrooms, one of which is a wet room. Belle Vue Grove provides accommodation for people who have mental health needs, learning disabilities, and broad spectrum autism. There were four people living there at the time of our inspection.
There is a registered manager in post. 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.
Four people we spoke with told us they felt safe at 50 Belle Vue Grove. We discussed safeguarding with staff and all were knowledgeable about the procedures to follow if they suspected abuse. Staff were clear that their role was to protect people and knew how to report abuse including the actions to take to raise this with external agencies.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had the appropriate knowledge to know how to apply the MCA and when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded.
Staff had received a range of training, which covered mandatory courses such as fire safety, infection control, food hygiene as well as condition specific training such as working with people with mental health problems and providing person centred support. We found that the staff had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people who lived at the home. People and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We saw that two staff routinely provided support to four people.
There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development. We also saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues were shared and raised. We saw that staff were recruited using procedures to check they were safe to work with vulnerable people.
The service encouraged people to lead a safe and active lifestyle. People were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible. People were supported to access facilities such as the local G.P, gym, shops and leisure facilities as well as to use the facilities in the service such as the kitchen for cooking meals.
There was a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints. Three people told us they would talk to staff if they were unhappy with anything. The staff we spoke with all told us they could recognise if people they supported weren’t well or were unhappy and what measures they would take to address any concerns.
We saw staff treating people with dignity and respect and observed staff caring for people in a gentle and polite manner.
People were encouraged to help prepare menus and food with staff support and on the day of our visit people prepared their lunch independently. People were encouraged to follow a healthy eating programme and staff worked with people to plan menus and to shop using budgeting skills.
We saw that detailed assessments were completed, which identified people’s health and support needs as well as any risks to people who used the service and others. These assessments were used to create care plans which were detailed and person centred. Care plans were regularly reviewed and involved the person as much as possible. We observed one person who had just moved to the service, writing their own care plan with the support of the registered manager.
We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely and there were clear guidelines in place for staff to follow.
We found that the building was clean and well-maintained. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety. We found that all relevant infection control procedures were followed by the staff at the home and there was plenty of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection. We saw that audits of infection control practices were completed.
We saw that the registered manager utilised a range of quality audits and used them to critically review the service. They also sought the views of people using the service and their families on a regular basis and used any information to improve the service provided. This had led to the systems being effective and the service being well-led.
Accidents and incidents were also reviewed by the registered manager and appropriate measures taken to reduce the risk of any further re-occurrence.
The service worked closely with other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s mental health needs were supported and monitored.
The inspection visit took place on 26 and 27 March 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.
We last inspected the service on 4 June 2013 and found the service was not in breach of any regulations at that time.
50 Belle Vue Grove, also called Cinnamon House is a large detached house situated within a suburb of Middlesbrough. It is within walking distance of local amenities. The property has a large garden and patio and bedrooms across both floors. There are also a number of bathrooms, one of which is a wet room. Belle Vue Grove provides accommodation for people who have mental health needs, learning disabilities, and broad spectrum autism. There were four people living there at the time of our inspection.
There is a registered manager in post. 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.
Four people we spoke with told us they felt safe at 50 Belle Vue Grove. We discussed safeguarding with staff and all were knowledgeable about the procedures to follow if they suspected abuse. Staff were clear that their role was to protect people and knew how to report abuse including the actions to take to raise this with external agencies.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had the appropriate knowledge to know how to apply the MCA and when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded.
Staff had received a range of training, which covered mandatory courses such as fire safety, infection control, food hygiene as well as condition specific training such as working with people with mental health problems and providing person centred support. We found that the staff had the skills and knowledge to provide support to the people who lived at the home. People and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We saw that two staff routinely provided support to four people.
There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development. We also saw a regular programme of staff meetings where issues were shared and raised. We saw that staff were recruited using procedures to check they were safe to work with vulnerable people.
The service encouraged people to lead a safe and active lifestyle. People were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible. People were supported to access facilities such as the local G.P, gym, shops and leisure facilities as well as to use the facilities in the service such as the kitchen for cooking meals.
There was a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints. Three people told us they would talk to staff if they were unhappy with anything. The staff we spoke with all told us they could recognise if people they supported weren’t well or were unhappy and what measures they would take to address any concerns.
We saw staff treating people with dignity and respect and observed staff caring for people in a gentle and polite manner.
People were encouraged to help prepare menus and food with staff support and on the day of our visit people prepared their lunch independently. People were encouraged to follow a healthy eating programme and staff worked with people to plan menus and to shop using budgeting skills.
We saw that detailed assessments were completed, which identified people’s health and support needs as well as any risks to people who used the service and others. These assessments were used to create care plans which were detailed and person centred. Care plans were regularly reviewed and involved the person as much as possible. We observed one person who had just moved to the service, writing their own care plan with the support of the registered manager.
We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely and there were clear guidelines in place for staff to follow.
We found that the building was clean and well-maintained. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety. We found that all relevant infection control procedures were followed by the staff at the home and there was plenty of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection. We saw that audits of infection control practices were completed.
We saw that the registered manager utilised a range of quality audits and used them to critically review the service. They also sought the views of people using the service and their families on a regular basis and used any information to improve the service provided. This had led to the systems being effective and the service being well-led.
Accidents and incidents were also reviewed by the registered manager and appropriate measures taken to reduce the risk of any further re-occurrence.
The service worked closely with other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s mental health needs were supported and monitored.
Staff were knowledgeable about people's physical and mental health needs and were aware of the support networks in place for people who used the service. Where people were being supported by a number of different health professionals or organisations it was clear that staff communicated with each other to make sure that people were safe and supported appropriately.
Staff received the training they needed to enable them to carry out their role effectively and safely. They underwent regular supervision sessions, had annual appraisals and told us that they felt supported by the manager of the service.
There were quality monitoring procedures in place and people were aware of their responsibilities in relation to maintaining and improving quality. The service had recently named a member of staff the infection control champion.
Records were stored securely, contained up to date, relevant information and were fit for purpose.
The health and welfare of people was promoted and where people needed intervention from health professionals such as GPs, dentist, and mental health specialists they had been involved. People were also encouraged to live a health lifestyle.
People were supported by staff who were aware of their responsibilities relating to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff had undergone training and there was information about who to contact about safeguarding and concerns about abuse readily accessible to staff. Staff had also undergone a robust recruitment process and people were supported by staff who had the skills and qualifications to support people appropriately.