We carried out a review of the data available to us about Clover Cottage on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Clover Cottage, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The provider had appropriate arrangements for visiting to help prevent the spread of Covid-19. All visitors such as professionals were required to arrange an appointment on specific days to visit and declare if they had any symptoms of Covid-19. Visitors temperatures were checked to minimise potential of infection being brought into the home. They also had to complete a declaration form to declare symptoms or if they had travelled abroad. Relatives primarily visited people in outside space where possible. Visits were staggered and restricted to one-hour slots and these areas were cleaned between visits.
¿ The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for Covid-19 and was following government guidance on regular testing. Measures were in place if staff or people tested positive for Covid-19 to ensure safety.
¿ Designated areas had been put in place for people to use if they showed symptoms or tested positive for Covid-19 should they not want to isolate in their rooms.
¿ The service ensured that staff received appropriate training and support to manage Covid-19. All staff had received training on Covid-19, infection control and the use of PPE. Systems were in place to support staff if they became unwell and when they returned to work.
¿ Adequate supply of PPE was in place and systems were in place to ensure there was not a shortfall of PPE. We observed staff wearing PPE and people were supported to maintain social distancing. Furniture had been rearranged to support social distancing.
¿ People’s temperature was taken twice daily to check they had not developed symptoms. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe if their temperature went above recommended levels.
Clover Cottage is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for 14 older people. At the time of our inspection 13 people were using the service. Some people were living with the experience of dementia and the service also supported people at the end of their lives. 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.
Clover Cottage Limited is a private company and Clover Cottage is the only service the company runs. The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The
manager registered with the CQC in March 2017.
The provider had systems and practices to keep people safe from abuse. Staff had been trained to keep people safe and they knew what to do if they had any concerns.
There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs and the provider carried out checks to make sure they only employed staff who were suitable to work with people using the service.
People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Care staff worked with local services to make sure people’s health care needs were met in the service.
The provider, registered manager and care staff protected people by the prevention and control of infection.
Staff had the training and support they needed to meet people’s needs.
The service provided varied and nutritious meals that people told us they enjoyed. Drinks were provided to make sure people were hydrated, especially during periods of hot weather.
The provider and registered manager worked with local health and social care services to make sure people received effective care, support and treatment.
The premises were appropriately maintained and provided a good standard of comfortable and homely accommodation. The provider had started work to provide additional bedrooms and improved communal areas.
Care staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully.
People using the service and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with respect. Staff we spoke with were passionate about their work and motivated to provide people with the best possible standards of care and support.
The care and support staff provided was appropriate to people's needs and enhanced their well-being. Staff were patient and discreet when providing care for people.
People using the service and their relatives told us people were well supported and their needs were met. The registered manager assessed people’s care needs before they moved in to the service and used their assessments to develop an individual care plan for each person.
Care staff had good relationships with people and spoke knowledgeably about their individual care and support needs. The provider, registered manager and care staff supported people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.
The provider had systems for recording, investigating and responding to any complaints they received.
People using the service and their relatives told us they felt it was well-managed. Care staff also commented positively on the way the service was managed.
People using the service, their relatives and professionals were encouraged and supported to give their views on the care and support people received.
The provider and registered manager had procedures in place to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.
This unannounced inspection took place on 9 December 2015. At our last inspection on 4 August 2014 we found that the provider did not meet required standards for care and welfare of people who use services, cleanliness and infection control, and requirements relating to assessing and monitoring the quality of care provision. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made in each of these areas and the service now met the required standards.
Clover Cottage provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to 14 older people. At the time of our inspection 13 people were using the service. Each person who lived at Clover Cottage had their own room. Only a limited number of bedrooms had ensuite shower rooms, however, all of them had a hand wash basin. The premises were fully accessible to people with mobility needs.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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 told us the home was clean and tidy. We noted that there were no offensive odours in the home. The registered manager and records confirmed that environmental health and safety risks had been identified and suitable action put in place to minimise the likelihood of harm to people. However, we found that a bath and hoist on the first floor had been out of use for over a year and people and their relatives’ views about the staffing level was mixed. Some people and their relatives said there were enough staff while others told us there were not always enough staff.
Staff reviewed care plans and there was evidence that these were personalised. People's healthcare, social care, nutrition and how they wanted to be supported were described in the care plans. We saw that information about people was described and staff were aware of each person's care needs.
People were satisfied with the care and support provided at the home. They told us they were happy living at the home because staff were caring and responsive to their needs. They told us staff treated them with respect and dignity and were satisfied with the meals available at the home.
Staff told us they received regular supervision and training to develop their skills. We noted that staff had good knowledge about people’s care needs and how to meet these. Records showed staff had attended various training programmes including Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is where a person can be lawfully deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. The MCA is a law designed to protect and empower people who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their care and treatment.
The registered managers had various systems in place for checking and maintaining the service and facilities. We noted that people, relatives and staff had regular meetings. The registered manager had distributed and collected survey questionnaires from relatives and professionals. This helped the registered manager to understand and respond to people's views about the service and make improvements
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. There were effective procedures in place for managing foreseeable emergencies, and to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. There were ineffective arrangements in place to protect people from the spread of infection, which meant that staff and people were being put at risk.
Is the service effective?
Staff received appropriate training, professional development, supervision and appraisal to support them in delivering care and other services. However, the provider was not able to demonstrate that care was always being delivered in line with recognised best practice standards and guidelines.
Is the service caring?
People's needs were individually assessed, and care and treatment was largely planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People told us they were able to get up when they wanted to, and were enabled to participate in activities on a regular basis. One relative told us: "The staff are very caring. I know my relative is being well looked after."
Is the service responsive?
The provider demonstrated that it understood the different needs of the communities it serves and acted on this to design and plan services. There were no formal systems in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations.
Is the service well-led?
Leadership was visible throughout the organisation. Staff told us there was an effective open door policy, that they felt supported by managers, and that they were listened to. There were some systems in place to regularly identify, assess and monitor the quality of the services provided. Some risks were identified and assessed but they were not always immediately acted upon to ensure the health, welfare and safety of people using the service and others who may be at risk. There were ineffective arrangements to support monitoring, review and amendments of policies and guidance.
People told us what it was like to live at the home and how they were treated by staff. They told us that they were happy with the quality of the service and were well cared for. One person told us 'it's a pleasure to be here. Staff are great, really kind. I do feel safe here.' Another said 'I am settled here. They do ask if I am okay and I do have choice.'
People were treated with respect and their care and welfare needs were being met. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff had received regular training and the manager and the provider monitored the quality of the service provided to ensure that people's needs were appropriately and safely met.
In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.