You are here

Clayburn Court Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 February 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Clayburn Court accommodates up to 64 older people, some of whom have dementia in a three-storey building. There were 32 people living at the service during this inspection.

We found the following examples of good practice.

In line with government guidelines external health and social care visitors had a series of checks completed before admission into the home.

End of life visits were organised with a family member accessing their relatives room using the nearest entrance /exit so they did not have to walk through the home. This reduced the risk of them encountering staff and other people living at the home.

A family meeting is held each month via zoom to discuss the service, COVID-19 restrictions and updates including vaccinations. A weekly newsletter is also sent to all families to keep them up to date.

The registered manager told us that the building had been zoned into different areas during the recent outbreak.

Staff changed into their uniform and put on their personal protective equipment (PPE) before starting work. There was an area for staff on each of the floors for changing and also for taking their breaks individually

The home visited looked clean. The registered manager told us it is everybody's responsibility to ensure that frequently touched areas such as handrails, chairs, tabletops, handles and furniture are cleaned regularly throughout the day. This cleaning was observed during the inspection.

Inspection carried out on 29 October 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Clayburn Court is a residential care home providing personal care to 30 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

Clayburn Court accommodates up to 64 people across three separate floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Care plans and risk assessments were not all up to date, and some had conflicting information so did not provide clear information to staff to fully meet people’s needs. The local authority had been supporting the provider in putting together a full action plan to address shortfalls in the service. The regional manager had worked hard to ensure improvements had been made and had a plan in place to sustain the improvements. One person said, “On the whole I’m very happy here, especially now it’s a bit more settled.”

The regional manager and the manager provided good leadership, made sure appropriate people were informed when if things went wrong and involved people and their relatives in the running of the service.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs and the provider had followed good recruitment procedures to make sure new staff were suitable to work at the service. Staff had undertaken training and received support from senior staff to ensure they could do their job well.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from avoidable harm and followed good infection prevention and control procedures.

People enjoyed food that they had chosen, and staff involved external professionals to help people maintain

their health. 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 supported this practice.

People received kind and compassionate care and were involved in most decisions about their care.

People and their relatives were confident their views would be listened to and complaints would be

addressed. Staff provided compassionate and kind care to people at the end of their lives.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 29 September 2017).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about the leadership of the service. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the relevant key question sections of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 22 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Clayburn Court is a care service providing accommodation for up to 64 older people, some of whom live with dementia. It is not registered to provide nursing care. There were 24 people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

This unannounced inspection took place on 22 August 2017. At the last inspection on 9 February 2016 overall the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. 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.

People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored and disposed of in a safe way.

Staff were clear about the procedure to follow to protect people from being harmed. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise these risks and enable people to live as independent and safe a life as possible.

Staff treated people with kindness. Staff showed they genuinely cared about the people they were looking after. They respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as they could be.

Staff were only employed after the provider had obtained satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the registered manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge by way of supervision and observation. Staff were trained to provide safe and effective care which met people’s individual needs and they knew people’s care requirements well.

People had health, care, and support plans in place which took account of their needs. These recorded people’s individual choices, their likes and dislikes and any assistance they required.

Staff supported people to make everyday decisions in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and their visitors/relatives were able to raise any suggestions or concerns they might have with the registered manager. They said that they felt listened to as communication with the registered manager and staff team was good.

Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. We found that people who lived at the service and their visitors/relatives were encouraged to share their views and give feedback about the quality of the care and support provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 9 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Clayburn Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 64 people, some of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors. There were a number of communal areas for people and their visitors to use. There were 11 people living at the home on the day of our inspection.

There was 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.

This is the first inspection since registration of this location in August 2015.

This unannounced inspection took place on 9 February 2016.

.

Systems were in place to meet people’s needs effectively and safely. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and protecting people from harm. Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were trained and were well supported by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

The CQC monitors the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. We found people’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people were assessed as not having the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process. DoLS applications were in progress and had been submitted to the authorising body.

People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met. People were provided with a varied, balanced diet and staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. Staff referred people appropriately to healthcare professionals. People received their prescribed medicines appropriately and medicines were stored in a safe way.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, caring and respectful. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People, their relatives, staff and other professionals were encouraged to express their views on the service provided.

Care plans contained all of the relevant information that staff required to meet people’s needs and therefore people could be confident that they always received the care and support that they needed. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure that the care and support provided was effective. Staff supported people to take part in hobbies, interests and activities of their choice. There was a varied programme of activities available to people.

The registered manager was supported by senior staff, care workers and ancillary staff. People, relatives and staff told us the home was very well run and that staff in all positions, including the registered manager, were approachable. People’s views were listened to and acted on.