We carried out a review of the data available to us about Clarendon House 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 Clarendon House, you can give feedback on this service.
Clarendon House is a care home providing accommodation for up to seven people with learning disabilities and mental health disorders. At the time of our inspection seven people were living at the home.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Overall the home was well decorated, and most areas well maintained. However, there were parts of the property in need of better cleaning routines. The organisation’s quality assurance team had assessed this area as being partly met.
Medicine systems were safe. Prompt action was taken by the registered manager following feedback on the findings of the inspection. These included developing protocols which detailed the order multiple pain relief medicines were to be administered as required. Risk assessments were developed on the potential harm to people who smoked and had prescribed creams and lotions that could be flammable.
Quality assurance systems were in place and action plans were set on how to develop service delivery. However, the audits had not identified that the use of language in some documents was not always respectful. We raised this with the registered manager who assured us action would be taken.
Individual risks were assessed and risk reducing measures were in place. There were opportunities for people to take risk safely.
There were people whose behaviours at times placed them, the staff and others at risk of harm. Guidance on how staff were to manage incidents were in place which the registered manager monitored and analysed.
The registered manager took prompt action following our feedback and updated risk assessments and guidance regarding the use of key codes for some people to gain access from and into the secure garden. Action was also taken to make clear the distraction techniques to be used by staff in behaviour support plans.
People were supported to have 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 told us they made their day to day decisions. People subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Community treatment orders were aware of the conditions and their meaning.
People told us they felt safe living at the service and for some people the sense of security came from having staff present and from the environment. The staff we spoke with had attended training in safeguarding, they knew the procedure which included the types of abuse and how to report their concerns.
There were sufficient staff on duty and people said they had the assistance necessary from staff to meet their needs
The induction for new staff included the Care Certificate. Staff said the training was good and there were opportunities for professional development. Staff said the team was new and they were supportive of each other.
People were supported with their ongoing healthcare. People told us meals were “ok.”
People told us the staff were kind and caring and the staff told us how they showed kindness and compassion
External professionals that gave feedback told us the staff made referrals in a timely manner. Their advice was followed and where this was not effective there were discussions on adapting guidance. External professionals said there was always staff available to support them with their visit.
Pen pictures and life stories were detailed and gave an insight into people’s early life, a history of their medical conditions and family dynamics. People knew they had a care plan and they said there were monthly meetings to discuss their progress made on goals. An activities coordinator was employed to support people with meaningful activities.
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 on 12 July 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.
This inspection took place on 26 April and 3 May 2017 and was announced. The registered manager was given short notice because people living in the home can become unsettled by the presence of an unannounced visitor. This gave the provider an opportunity to plan our visit with the people using the service. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. The service had a change of provider name at the beginning of 2017; as a result the location was re-registered. There had not been any changes to the registered manager or the location address of service provision. This means that previous inspection history; in which no concerns were identified, are not linked to this provider.
A registered manager was employed by the service who was present throughout the inspection. 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.
We saw people were relaxed with the staff who were supporting them, and did not hesitate to seek support or assistance from any of the staff members present during our inspection. This indicated that people felt safe around the staff members. Processes were in pace to ensure their safety such as recruitment checks and the way medicines were managed.
Care and support was centred on the individual’s needs and routines. People’s wishes, rights and privacy was respected. The home had implemented a 'Recovery Star' outcome focused measurement system, which is designed specifically for people with Mental Health Difficulties. Two healthcare professionals described how the staff “worked really hard to support residents with their personal goals and accommodate individual’s needs.”
Everyone spoke highly of the level of care the staff and management provided at Clarendon House. The registered manager continued to work alongside other health and social care professionals to promote their understanding of what was good practice, as well as working alongside local voluntary organisations
Without exception, people felt able to raise any concerns, and were confident they would be listened too, taken seriously and action be taken.
The registered manager led a staff team who were passionate about providing a good, value based service to people. People were supported by staff who described moral as being “very high”.
Effective systems were in place to ensure the quality of the service was monitored.