You are here

Archived: Clann House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 25 January 2016

This was an unannounced inspection which took place over two days on 25 and 26 November 2015. Clann House provides care for up to 34 older people. At the time of our inspection 25 people were living there.

The home had a registered 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.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the care and support they received. Care and support focussed on each person’s individual needs, their likes, dislikes and routines that were important to them. Where people were unable to consent to their care or support best interests meetings were held. When people’s needs changed staff reacted promptly involving other social and health care professionals if needed.

People chose the meals they wished to eat and decided where to eat them. Special diets were available for people at risk of losing weight or who were at risk of choking.

People told us they felt safe. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

People had their medicines managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed, received them on time and understood what they were for. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to healthcare professionals, such as GPs, community nurses and speech and language therapists.

Relatives and friends were always made to feel welcome and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who mattered to them. People and those who mattered to them knew how to raise concerns and make complaints.

Staff received a comprehensive induction programme. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were appropriately trained and had the correct skills to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff described the management to be supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs. Comments included, "I love it. I love everything about it" and "I love working here because the residents are well looked after. Everyone here is compassionate."

Staff understood their role with regards the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Applications were made and advice was sought to help safeguard people and respect their human rights.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed. Learning from incidents and concerns raised was used to help drive improvements and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 25 January 2016

The service was safe. Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse, and the service acted appropriately to protect people.

Staff managed medicines safely. Medicines were stored and disposed of correctly and accurate records were kept.



Updated 25 January 2016

The service was effective. People received care and support that met their needs and reflected their individual choices and preferences.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff displayed a good understanding of the requirements of the act, which was followed in practice.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet.



Updated 25 January 2016

The service was caring. People were supported by staff that promoted independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

Positive caring relationships had been formed between people and staff.

Relatives and friends were able to visit without restriction and reported receiving information they required about their family member.



Updated 25 January 2016

The service was responsive. Care records were personalised and so met people’s individual needs.

Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.

Staff understood the importance of companionship and social contact.

People and relatives reported any concerns, however small, were dealt with quickly and efficiently.



Updated 25 January 2016

The service was well-led. The registered manager had instilled clear values that were understood and put into practice.

Staff were motivated and inspired to develop and provide quality care.

People and staff were involved in a meaningful way and enabled to make suggestions about what mattered to them.

Quality assurance systems drove improvements and raised standards of care.