You are here

Cromwell House Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 19 and 22 January 2018. At our last inspection in September 2016 we found a breach of regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. ‘Fit and proper persons employed’. This was because we found that the service was unable to provide a hard copy of a staff member’s Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). This inspection found improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting regulations.

Following the last inspection in September 2016, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of ‘safe’ to at least good.

Cromwell House provides care for one individual with a learning disability in one adapted building. Cromwell House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post. At the time of our inspection the registered manager, who was also the provider was in the process of ‘stepping back’ from the day to day running of Cromwell House. Their deputy manager was in the process of registering as 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.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. A member of staff had been employed since our last inspection and the recruitment process had been robust. Staffing arrangements were flexible in order to meet people’s individual needs. Staff received a range of training and regular support to keep their skills up to date in order to support people appropriately. Staff spoke positively about communication between staff at the service.

People were safe. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised. Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. People’s rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate legal processes. Medicines were safely managed on people’s behalf. Staff ensured infection control procedures were in place. People’s individual needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the premises.

Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. The service adopted informal methods when seeking people's views. This was through regular family contact, via phone calls and visits. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, which they enjoyed. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff were motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and compassionate. The organisation’s visions and values centred around the people they supported, which ensured their equality, diversity and human rights were respected.

A number of effective methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and make continuous improvements.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was safe.

People were safe. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised.

People’s risks were managed well to ensure their safety.

Staffing arrangements were flexible in order to meet people’s individual needs.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Medicines were safely managed.

Staff ensured infection control procedures were in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received a range of training and supervision which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people’s needs and recognising changes in people’s health.

People’s health needs were managed well through regular contact with community health professionals.

People’s rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate guidance.

People’s individual needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the premises.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, which they enjoyed.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was caring.

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff spoke confidently about people’s specific needs and how they liked to be supported.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff promoted people’s equality, diversity and ensured their human rights were upheld.

People were able to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.

The service used a variety of communication tools to enable interactions to be led by people receiving care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was responsive.

Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences, which were met with staff support.

People engaged in wide variety of activities and spent time in the local community going to specific places of interest.

There were regular opportunities for people and people that matter to them to raise issues, concerns and compliments.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 February 2018

The service was well-led.

Staff spoke positively about communication between staff at the service.

The service adopted informal methods when seeking people's views. This was through regular family contact, via phone calls and visits.

The organisation’s visions and values centred around the people they supported, which ensured their equality, diversity and human rights were respected.

A number of effective methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received.