You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 October 2017

The inspection was announced and took place on 24 August 2017. We arranged the inspection date with the registered manager two days before our visit that we would be inspecting this service. This was to make sure staff and people we needed to speak with were available and to respect the preferences of people living there who liked to know when visitors would be coming to the home.

Clarendon House provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people who are recovering from brain injury. At the time of this inspection there were four people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The four people living at the home felt safe and well-supported.

Risk assessments had been completed to minimise the risks, both in terms of the physical environment and also in how to support people as safely as possible in meeting their goals.

Staff had been trained in in safeguarding adults and were aware of the types of abuse and how to make safeguarding referrals.

Plans were in place on how to support people in the event of an emergency.

There were robust recruitment procedures being followed to make sure that appropriate staff were employed to support people.

Staff and people felt the staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were planned and adjusted to make sure people were supported to meet their rehabilitation goals.

People were supported with medicines with the aim of people managing their medication on their own.

Staff knew people’s needs well and the organisation had a training programme in place. This ensured that staff had thorough induction and opportunity to develop their skills and knowledge.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s consent underpinned how staff worked with people in meeting identified goals.

At the time of the inspection the people who lived at the home had full capacity to be involved in all decision making about their goals, care and support.

Systems were in place to support people with budgeting, shopping and cooking.

People felt the staff were very caring and supportive.

People’s needs had been fully assessed and interventions and goals set with people. These were detailed in care plans that were up to date with evidence of regular reviews. Care plans were person centred focusing on their goals for rehabilitation.

People were supported with leisure and recreational goals as well as domestic routines so that they could fill their time meaningfully as well as working to rehabilitation goals.

There was a system in place for managing complaints that people were aware of. No complaints had been made about the service since registration.

The service was well-led with an open culture.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was safe.

Clarendon House provided a safe service in supporting people to become independent.

Risks were assessed and steps taken to make sure people were supported safely.

There were suitable recruitment procedures followed and appropriate numbers of staff deployed to meet people�s needs.

Medicines were managed safely in supporting people in their rehabilitation



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were well-trained and knowledgeable about people and there was an extended range of professionals within the organisation should people need additional support.

People were fully consulted and gave consent to how they were supported in meeting their identified goals.

People received appropriate support in budgeting, shopping and cooking to make sure they stayed healthy.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was caring.

People felt staff were kind, caring and supportive.

People�s privacy and dignity was promoted and respected.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Detailed assessments had been carried out and from these care plans had been developed with the person.

People were encouraged to take part in the domestic running of the home as well as taking part in activities meaningful to them.

The home had an accessible complaints procedure and people were aware of how to make a complaint.



Updated 27 October 2017

The service was well-managed.

People were supported by an open and accessible management team and motivated staff.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the service provided to people.