You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Clayton Brook House on 30 and 31 May 2018.

Clayton Brook House is a ‘care home’ which is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to seven adults with autism. The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the CQC policy ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Nursing care is not provided at Clayton Brook House. At the time of our inspection 6 people were using the service.

The service was managed by 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.

At our last inspection in May 2017 the service was rated Requires Improvement. This was because the provider had failed to ensure refresher training and supervision for staff and there were insufficient complaints processes. Recommendations were also made on improving medicine management processes. At this inspection we found sufficient action had been completed to make improvements.

During this inspection we found there were no breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found the evidence to support the overall rating of Good. However, we have made recommendations about infection prevention and induction training for managers.

We found there were management and leadership arrangements in place to support the effective day to day running of the service. The registered manager had made a number of improvements and the provider was monitoring the service.

Staff recruitment procedures had improved. Robust processes were in place to make sure all appropriate checks were carried out before staff started working at the service.

There were enough staff available to provide care and support; we found staffing arrangements were kept under review.

Relatives told us they felt people were safe at the service. Staff had received training on supporting people safely and on abuse and protection matters. They had also received training on positively responding to people’s behaviours. Staff were aware of the signs and indicators of abuse and they knew what to if they had any concerns.

Risks to people’s well-being were being assessed and managed. We did find a lack individual risk assessments in responses to specific needs; however the registered manager took action to rectify this matter. Systems were in place to maintain a safe environment for people who used the service and others.

Arrangements were in place to gather information on people’s backgrounds, their needs, abilities and preferences before they used the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and processes at the service supported this practice.

We found people were effectively and sensitively supported with their healthcare needs and medical appointments. Changes in people’s health and well-being were monitored and responded to. People had been supported to increase their awareness of their wellbeing and health care needs.

We observed positive and respectful interactions between people using the service and staff. Relatives made positive comments about the staff team, describing them as compassionate, tolerant and friendly.

Staff expressed a practical awareness of promoting people’s dignity, rights and choices. People were supported to engage in meaningful activities at the service and in

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was not always safe.

There were some safe processes in place to support people with their medicines. Some medicine management processes needed improvement; however they were put right during the inspection.

Processes were in place to maintain a safe environment for people who used the service. However, we found some progress was needed with managing odours and infection prevention.

Processes for staff recruitment would include the completion of relevant character checks. There were enough staff available to provide people with safe care and support. Staff were aware of safeguarding and protection matters.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was effective.

Processes were in place to find out about people�s individual needs, abilities and preferences. People's health and wellbeing was supported and they had access healthcare services when necessary.

People were supported to eat healthily; their preferred meal choices were known and catered for.

People were encouraged and supported to make their own choices and decisions. The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Arrangements were in place to develop and supervise staff in carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was caring.

Relatives made positive comments about the supportive and caring attitude of staff. We observed positive, respectful and sensitive interactions between people using the service and staff.

Staff were aware of people�s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities, which helped them provide personalised support.

People were supported in a way which promoted their dignity, privacy and independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and support. Processes were in place to monitor, review and respond to people�s changing needs and preferences.

People had opportunity to maintain and develop their skills. They had access community resources, to pursue their chosen interests and lifestyle choices.

There were processes in place to manage and respond to complaints, concerns and any general dissatisfaction with the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a management team providing effective leadership and direction.

Staff were knowledgeable and positive about their work. They indicated team work and staff morale was good and the managers were supportive and approachable.

There were processes in place to monitor and check the quality of people�s experience of the service.