We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cranmer 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 Cranmer House, you can give feedback on this service.
Cranmer House is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 35 people. At the time of the inspection visit, 17 people were living there, ten of whom were on short term respite care. Most rooms on the ground floor were temporarily empty following a programme of refurbishment.
Care is provided at Cranmer House over two floors. Each floor has various communal areas for people to use, with the main dining room being on the ground floor.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
All the people and relatives we spoke with during our inspection visit told us they were happy with the care and support received at Cranmer House. Staff were well trained, and they treated people with kindness and compassion.
People were treated as individuals and their decisions were respected. They received care that was personalised to their individual needs and preferences. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People felt safe living in Cranmer House. Any risks to their safety had been assessed and managed well. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and the home and equipment people used was clean. People received their medicines when they needed them.
Staff were quick to identify when people needed support with their health and they worked well with other professionals at this time. People had a choice of what to eat and drink and staff had been trained to ensure the dining experience for people was a pleasant and social one.
Staff had time to provide activities and stimulation to enhance people’s wellbeing and people were supported with their hobbies and interests. People told us they liked their rooms which they could personalise, and the layout of the home provided them with both private and communal areas to reside in.
People had been involved in making decisions about how they wanted to receive their care, and this was respected. People were able to raise concerns to the staff or registered manager freely and without fear. They were listened to and their views respected. The provider acted to ensure people’s lives were as comfortable as possible.
Good leadership was in place. The registered manager was knowledgeable, experienced and well liked by all. They ensured that governance systems were implemented and effective at monitoring and improving the quality of care people received. They along with the deputy manager, had instilled an open, inclusive and empowering culture within the home. This resulted in people, relatives and staff feeling that they were treated as individuals and with respect.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager in the home. 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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good…
People received support to take their medicines safely from trained staff. Staff were knowledgeable about how to keep people safe from harm, and they mitigated risks to people’s safety where practicable. There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.
Staff were competent to carry out their roles effectively and received training that supported them to do so. People were supported to eat a choice of freshly prepared meals, and supported with special diets if they required. People were also supported with access to healthcare when required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind and compassionate in the way they delivered support to people, and they encouraged independence appropriately. They were accommodating to people’s relatives into the home when they wished to visit.
People had access to activities which supported their wellbeing and staff responded to their needs in a timely way. People were comfortable to raise concerns and speak with the registered manager if they wished.
There was good leadership in place and the staff team worked well together. There were systems in place to assess, monitor and analyse the service in order to improve. The registered managed had ensured they kept links within the local community to help provide support to Cranmer House and the people staying there.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection initially took place on 31December 2014 and was unannounced. We arranged a return visit to the service on 6 January 2015 to complete this inspection.
Cranmer House provides accommodation and care for up to 20 people for relatively short periods of time. Most people staying at the service received respite or re-enablement care.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were enjoying their stay at Cranmer House as staff provided the support and care they needed. Staff were kind and therefore they felt safe and cared for. The service offered people a choice of activities and meals. We saw that where people had a specific preference this was respected by staff.
Staff were knowledgeable about the support and care needs of people who used the service. They received the training they needed to carry out their roles safely and effectively. They felt supported by the manager and we saw they were encouraged to develop their skills. This then strengthened the quality of the service that was provided to people.
We saw that medicines were managed safely by staff, who had received the appropriate training in how to store and administer them to people.
The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly at the service and we observed people being supported in an appropriate and considerate manner by staff. Staff asked people if they needed assistance and chatted with the person as they provided support.
There were continual audits and assessments completed to ensure that the quality of the service was satisfactory and met people’s needs. Complaints were responded to appropriately, although these were few as people were encouraged to voice their opinions during their stay at the service.
This inspection initially took place on 31December 2014 and was unannounced. We arranged a return visit to the service on 6 January 2015 to complete this inspection.
Cranmer House provides accommodation and care for up to 20 people for relatively short periods of time. Most people staying at the service received respite or re-enablement care.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were enjoying their stay at Cranmer House as staff provided the support and care they needed. Staff were kind and therefore they felt safe and cared for. The service offered people a choice of activities and meals. We saw that where people had a specific preference this was respected by staff.
Staff were knowledgeable about the support and care needs of people who used the service. They received the training they needed to carry out their roles safely and effectively. They felt supported by the manager and we saw they were encouraged to develop their skills. This then strengthened the quality of the service that was provided to people.
We saw that medicines were managed safely by staff, who had received the appropriate training in how to store and administer them to people.
The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly at the service and we observed people being supported in an appropriate and considerate manner by staff. Staff asked people if they needed assistance and chatted with the person as they provided support.
There were continual audits and assessments completed to ensure that the quality of the service was satisfactory and met people’s needs. Complaints were responded to appropriately, although these were few as people were encouraged to voice their opinions during their stay at the service.
All five people we spoke with at Cranmer House told us that they had been involved in their care planning and had agreed to it. We saw records showing that people had consented to plans put in place to minimise identified risks. People told us staff respected them and obtained their permission before support was given with personal care.
We inspected during a run of hot weather. A 'cool room' had been provided for people's comfort. In addition all rooms had fans and people had access to a plentiful supply of drinks to help ensure they were sufficiently hydrated. The care plans and risk assessments in place were appropriate for people's individual requirements.
The premises were clean and well maintained. The communal bathrooms and hairdressing salon would benefit from some accessorising as the unadorned walls gave the rooms a clinical appearance.
Staff were trained and where training was required it had been booked. Whilst some paper supervisions were a bit behind work place supervisions were up to date as were staff appraisals.
The was a suitable complaints process in operation, however no complaints had been received in the last year.
how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met. The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector, a practising professional and an "expert by experience" (people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective).
We spoke with a total of six people who were using this service. We also spoke to two visitors of people who were using this service.One person told us that, 'I arranged for my daughter to do my washing', and another person told us that, 'I make my own way down to the dining room'. Everyone we spoke with confirmed that the staff treated them with respect and provided them with choices whilst attempting to promote their independence.
People spoken with were complimentary about the care they received and could explain why they were there, how long they were staying and how staff met their needs, 'I can have a bath in the evening if I want' and, 'They helped arrange a visit to where I'm going next' were some examples given.
Everyone we spoke to was positive about the quality of the meals provided. For example several people reported that, "The food is very good here' and "We always have plenty of choice".
None of the people that we spoke with had any concerns about their safety in the service and we received a number of positive comments from people. For example, 'Staff are lovely' and, 'You can't fault the care here'.
All of the people we spoke confirmed that care staff understood their care needs . For example one person told us that, 'I can make my way across the room and along the corridor for a bit, but staff know when I need to use my wheelchair or help getting in the bath'. Visitors that we spoke with confirmed that they had been involved in the admission and needs assessment process for their relative.
All of the people and the visitors that we spoke with told us that they were consulted by both staff and management on their satisfaction with the standard of care being provided by the service. They were confident that if they had any concerns these would be addressed promptly.