You are here

Archived: Clarendon Manor Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 March 2015

This inspection took place on the 11 February 2015 and was unannounced.

Clarendon Manor is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 36 older people. On the day of our visit there were 26 people living at the home.

A registered manager was 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Clarendon Manor and staff understood their responsibilities around keeping people safe. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. These included a procedure to manage identified risks to people’s care and an effective procedure for managing people’s medicines. There were enough suitably trained and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Staff received training in areas considered essential to meet people’s needs safely and consistently.

Staff understood about consent and where people had capacity to make decisions, staff respected decisions people had made. The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), but we found capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not been consistently implemented in the home.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, DoLS, ensures people’s freedoms and liberties are not unlawfully restricted. The registered manager understood their legal obligations in regard of DoLS. They were in the process of making applications to the local authority to make sure people who lacked capacity continued to live their lives safely and in the least restrictive way.

Staff were respectful and friendly in their approach to people. There was a consistent staff team that enabled people to build relationships and friendships with staff. People were given choices about how they wanted to spend their day so they were able to retain some independence in their everyday life. Family and friends were able to visit when they wished and there were a range of things for people to do during the day to provide stimulation and promote wellbeing. Staff understood people’s healthcare needs and people were supported by external healthcare professionals to ensure their needs were fully met.

People who lived at the home, relatives and care staff said the home was well managed. There was an experienced management team in place and staff felt supported by the registered manager and senior staff. Staff told us they were listened to and would not hesitate to raise any concerns with the manager.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This was through feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, staff meetings and a programme of checks and audits.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 March 2015

The service was safe.

Staff understood how to keep people safe and there were systems in place to identify and minimise risks related to the care people received. There were enough suitably experienced staff to meet people’s care needs and a safe procedure for managing people’s medicines.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 March 2015

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff understood about consent and respected decisions people made about their daily lives. However, capacity assessments and best interest meetings, had not been consistently implemented to ensure certain decisions people made were in their best interest and maintained their health and wellbeing. Staff received regular training to support people effectively. People were provided with enough to eat and drink during the day and had their healthcare needs met with the support of healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 March 2015

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring and their privacy and dignity was protected. Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs and provided respectful care to people. People said they were listened to and their views and opinions respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 March 2015

The service was responsive.

People were happy with their care and had no complaints about the service they received. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s health and support needs and had up to date information about these at a handover meeting at the start of each shift. This enabled staff to provide the care and support people required.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 March 2015

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives told us the home was well managed. There was an experienced management team and staff said there was good management and leadership within the home. The registered manager and the staff understood their roles and responsibilities and what was expected of them. The quality of service people received was regularly monitored through a series of audits and checks.