You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 June 2017

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 26 and 27 April 2017. Cliddesden Road provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven adults who have a mental health diagnosis, with associated physical and psychological support needs. People are supported to reach their potential, moving towards independent living and social inclusion within the community. The provider believes that people experiencing mental distress can direct their own journey towards improved mental health and to living independent, fulfilling lives. The provider refers to this concept as the ‘Together Progression Model’ and services providing this care and support as ‘projects’.

The home is a large Victorian house with three floors, comprising seven large bedrooms with a bathroom on each floor. The staff office and spacious communal areas are situated on the ground floor, with a staff sleep in room on the top floor. This is a bedroom used by the night staff who sleep at the home overnight. There is a communal TV lounge, dining room and kitchen and a quiet sensory room on the first floor. To the rear of the house is a large garden and patio, together with a small enclosed courtyard to the side of the house, which currently houses a table tennis table.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Since our last inspection the registered manager had also become the registered manager at another service within the provider’s care group. Two deputy managers had been appointed to support the registered manager.

People were protected from the risks of potential abuse by staff who knew what actions to take if they felt people were at risk. The registered manager and staff protected people from harm by identifying risks associated with their support and managing these effectively.

Staff underwent robust pre-selection checks to assure the provider they were suitable to support people with mental health needs. The registered manager ensured there were always sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary experience and skills to support people safely. People’s medicines were administered safely by staff who had completed safe management of medicines training and had their competency to do so assessed.

Staff had the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to carry out their roles and support people effectively. Staff had completed the provider’s induction programme and completed their required training. The management team completed six weekly supervisions, annual appraisals and held regular staff meetings. Staff received effective supervision, appraisal and support to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

People were supported by staff who understood the principles in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Consent to people’s care was always obtained in line with legislation and guidance and staff enabled and supported people to make their own decisions.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy, balanced diet.

Staff were alert and responsive to changes in people’s needs and ensured people accessed health care services promptly when required. People were supported to maintain their mental health and well-being.

People consistently valued their relationships with the staff team and felt that they often went ‘the extra mile’ for them. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and compassionate and were determined and creative in overcoming any obstacles to achieving this. The project had a strong, visible person centred culture and was exceptional at helping people to express their views so th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risks of potential abuse by staff who knew what actions to take if they felt people were at risk. Risk assessments were created to protect people from harm whilst promoting their independence.

Sufficient suitably qualified staff were deployed to meet people’s needs safely.

People’s medicines were administered safely by staff who had completed safe management of medicines training.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision to enable them to effectively meet people’s assessed health and care needs.

People were supported to make informed decisions and choices by staff who understood legislation and guidance relating to consent and mental capacity.

People were encouraged to maintain a nutritious, healthy diet and identified dietary needs were managed effectively.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was exceptionally caring.

People consistently valued their relationships with the staff team and felt that they often went ‘the extra mile’ for them.

Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and compassionate and were determined and creative in overcoming any obstacles to achieving this.

The service had a strong, visible person centred culture and was exceptional at helping people to express their views so they understand things from their points of view.

Staff were exceptional in enabling people to become and remain independent and had an in-depth appreciation of people’s diverse individual needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was tailored to meet their individual needs. Staff responded effectively to meet people’s changing health needs.

Staff promoted people’s confidence and independence to empower them to live their lives as they wanted.

Complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s policy. People were provided with information about how to complain, which was accessible and in a format of their choice.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 June 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager and management team had developed a positive culture within the service, which was person centred and empowering.

The registered manager and deputy managers demonstrated good management and consistently recognised, encouraged and implemented innovative ideas and strategies to drive a good quality service.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered, which were effectively operated by the management team.