Clova House Residential Care Home

Updated 1 November 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team included: One inspector, one assistant inspector and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Clova House Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

The provider is required to notify us of events that happen at the service. We reviewed this information when we were planning the inspection. We also reviewed information that the public have sent us since the last inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service and three relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with four members of care staff, the chef, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included relevant parts of six people’s care records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Updated 1 November 2019

About the service

Clova House is a residential care home, providing personal care support for up to 20 people. At the time of our inspection 19 people were using the service.

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

People told us that there were sometimes not enough staff. We observed staff working hard to meet people’s needs. Rota’s confirmed there were sometimes less staff, this would impact on timeliness of staff support.

Medicines were given as prescribed, however sufficient records were not always kept. This could impact on the safe administration of medicine.

Some mental capacity assessments were not in place. This meant people were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. These policies and systems put people at risk of not being supported in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

The environment was not sufficiently clean and required some renovation. The registered manager advised that renovation was planned.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had good knowledge of how to support people and records were in place to guide safe care. Care was delivered in line with recognised standards. Different professionals visited the service and their advice was documented and followed.

Staff were not always safely recruited, for example one staff member had no references from a previous role. Staff had not received all their training, but we did not see any impact on their work. Staff had good knowledge.

People had access to a balanced diet. They spoke positively about the quality of the food supplied at the service. Where people required support to eat, this was done in a caring way.

Staff were caring and we observed positive interactions between people and staff. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported to have good quality care at the end of their lives.

People could complete routines as they preferred. Staff knew peoples preferences. People’s diverse needs (for example, religion) were recognised and supported. The service told us that they had activities provided at the service, we observed a visiting activity provider. There were no records kept of activities for us to assess the range of activities at the service.

People were given information in a way they could understand. This met the legal requirement of the accessible information standard (2016).

People told us that they felt they would be listened to if they made a complaint. No formal complaints had been made since the last inspection.

The registered manager and staff spoke clearly about how people’s experiences and needs always come first. There was a clear governance framework to ensure people’s needs were met safely and effectively. Where concerns were raised at the inspection visit, the provider responded promptly to our concerns. They advised they will work to address these concerns and improve the service. We will assess the effectiveness of this at our next inspection.

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 22 March 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.