We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cranleigh Gardens 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 Cranleigh Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
Cranleigh Gardens was well led. The provider's ethos and values put people at the heart of the service. This vision was driven by the leadership of the nominated individual and of the registered manager. The staff team were empowered to contribute fully to support a person-centred model of effective care. This helped people using the service, with complex needs, to achieve their hopes and aspirations for more independent living.
People, their relatives and professionals all praised the managers and the staff team and gave examples of the care that was delivered.
People received personalised care and support according to their needs and wishes. This was particularly effective in supporting people to achieve their goals and outcomes as it also helped people to be more confident in developing the skills they needed to achieve more independent living.
The provider created the right culture where their staff could develop and provided the right training and support to make sure they could fulfil their roles appropriately.
The service was flexible and adapted to people's changing needs and wishes and promoted their independence. Care was person centred and risk assessments were in place. Risk management plans helped staff as well as the person to minimise risks and included positive risk taking.
People's diversity and their unique individual needs were well-respected by staff. The staff team knew people extremely well and were able to provide appropriate support discreetly and with compassion.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service were all focused on achieving these outcomes.
People were encouraged and supported to lead as fulfilled a life as possible. They were supported to follow their hopes and aspirations.
There was clear evidence of collaborative working and excellent communication with other professionals in health and social care as well as in the community and education sectors. The provider used innovative ways to build excellent relationships with the community and with health and social care professionals so that people using the service would benefit.
Staffing levels were good and appropriate to ensure people's needs were met in a safe, timely and consistent way.
Staff were supported and encouraged to continue their professional development in order to progress and provide the best outcomes for people.
People were kept safe. Staff demonstrated they knew how to raise safeguarding concerns and were aware of the processes to follow in order to keep people safe.
People told us they were kept safe and that they felt safe.
Care and support plans were developed to ensure people’s needs and risks were met appropriately. People were assisted to work towards achieving their maximum potential in terms of their independence. Risk management strategies were in place to assist staff to help people to manage these risks and to identify triggers for behaviours that may challenge.
The administration of medicines was managed in a safe way. There were policies and procedures in place for staff to follow and staff told us they found them useful in ensuring people received their medicines safely.
The service was following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.
People were assisted to become more independent with their menu planning and budgeting to enable them to eat more healthily and within their budgets. They were helped with developing their meal preparation skills.
People's health care needs were being met and they had access to healthcare services where needed.
Staff were kind and caring, they respected and valued people using the service.
People's privacy was respected, and people were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends.
There was a comprehensive and effective governance system in place. People, relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. They recognised that their views and feedback were valued and respected and consistently used to support quality service development. A wide range of comprehensive audits took place to ensure the quality of the service was maintained.
Robust processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
This last rating for this service was good (published 15 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Cranleigh Gardens provides accommodation, care and support for people with mental health needs. The aim is to help people to live with more independence in the community and the average length of stay is approximately two years. There were four people using the service when we visited and one vacancy.
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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We looked at the systems in place for managing medicines and found the systems in place for medicines management were not always safe. We found errors with the recording procedures for medicines.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the service they received. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place that informed the manager and staff as well as people who used the service and their relatives about how to report suspected abuse.
People had risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of harm. Staff knew how to use the information to keep people safe and work with them positively to help them be as independent as possible.
The registered manager ensured there were safe recruitment practices to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable. People received effective care because staff were appropriately trained and supported to do their jobs.
All the people living in the home had the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Staff had received appropriate training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way.
People were encouraged and supported by staff to become more independent by developing the knowledge and skills to do so. This included eating well and staying healthy. When people needed care and support from healthcare professionals, staff ensured people received this promptly.
People had care plans outlining the goals they wished to achieve whilst at the service and what support they required from staff to achieve them. People were involved in planning their care and their views were sought and planned for as a central and important part of the process. The service regularly monitored people’s changing needs and involved them in discussions about any changes that needed to be made to their care plans.
Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.
People were encouraged to maintain relationships with the people that were important to them. Relatives and other visitors were made to feel welcome and told us they were free to visit people in the home.
The provider encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner. People were aware of the complaints policy and that was used effectively.
People gave positive feedback about the management of the service. The registered manager and the staff were approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service. The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and people were asked for their opinions via feedback surveys. Action plans were developed where required to address areas that needed improvements.
This inspection took place on 12 October 2015 and was unannounced. This was our first inspection since the service was registered in April 2015. We did not give a rating to the service because there was only one person using the service and this was its first inspection. We did not have enough information about the experiences of a sufficient number of people using the service over a consistent period of time to give a rating to each of the five questions and an overall rating for the service.
Cranleigh Gardens provides accommodation, care and support for up to five people with mental health needs. The aim is to help people to live with more independence in the community and the average length of stay is approximately two years. There was one person using the service when we visited.
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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The person who used the service told us they felt safe with the service they received. We saw there were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place that informed the registered manager and staff as well as people who used the service about how to report suspected abuse.
The person living at Cranleigh Gardens had a risk assessment and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of harm to them. Staff knew how to use the information to keep them safe and work with them positively to help them be as independent as possible.
The registered manager ensured there were safe recruitment practices to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed as unfit or unsuitable.
Staff worked with the hospital clinical team to ensure safe medicines management processes were in place for the person living at Cranleigh Gardens. People would be supported to self-medicate when they were able to do so.
The person we met received effective care and they thought staff were well trained and did their jobs well.
Staff had received appropriate training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS provides a process to make sure people are only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way.
People told us they were encouraged and supported by staff in a way that was helping them to become more independent. They said their aim was to develop their own knowledge and skills to help them with this. One important part of this included eating well and staying healthy. They said that when they needed care and support from healthcare professionals such as the doctor or dentist, staff had helped them access these services.
There was a care plan in place for the person living at Cranleigh Gardens that outlined the goals they wished to achieve and what support they needed from staff to achieve them. They had expressed their views and they felt they were an important part of the process. Staff monitored their needs and involved them in discussions about any changes that needed to be made to their care plan.
We observed that staff respected the person’s privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.
People were encouraged to maintain relationships with the people that were important to them. People important to individuals using the service were made to feel welcome and they were free to visit relatives and friends without restrictions as long as they said where they were going.
The provider encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner. People were made aware of the complaints policy so they could raise any concerns they might have so these could be dealt with appropriately.
People gave us positive feedback about the management of the service. We found the registered manager and the staff approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service. The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and to ask people using the service, relatives and health and social care professionals for their opinions via feedback surveys. Action plans were developed where required to address areas that needed improvements.