You are here

Heathcotes Cranbourne House Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 August 2019

About the service

Heathcotes Cranbourne House is a specialist residential service for adults with a learning disability who may have dual diagnoses and associated complex needs. The service has eight en-suite bedrooms and provides twenty-four-hour support. At the time of our inspection, six people were living at this service.

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 receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

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

People felt safe living at this service as they were supported by staff who had received training in recognising and reporting abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff in the home to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using safe procedures and on occasions, one person who lived in the home was part of the interviewing process.

Instances when staff needed to use legal forms of restraint had significantly reduced. Low level forms of restraint were occasionally used at the time of inspection. At the same time, people’s dependency levels had reduced. This had been achieved through building relationships between people and staff based on trust, discussion with relevant professionals and careful risk assessing.

Medication was safely managed as people received their medication as prescribed and the systems to support this were effective.

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.

Positive outcomes were seen where people had specific dietary needs. People had been assisted by staff to manage their diet and we saw they had lost or gained weight in line with their health needs. Other specific dietary needs relating to risk and religion were being met.

The registered manager and staff team worked in partnership with a range of professionals. People had health action plans which showed the involvement of health professionals in meeting their needs.

People and one relative told us they liked the staff who provided their care and support. Through our discussions with staff and examples of interactions we observed, we concluded people were supported by staff who knew their needs well. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and they were encouraged to live independent lives.

People had a wide range of risk assessments to support activities of daily living both inside and away from the home.

Care plans were sufficiently detailed and person-centred. They provided essential information for staff to provide effective care. Regular reviews of care plans were taking place. People received social stimulation both within and away from the home.

Complaints were dealt with appropriately. The service was well-led by a registered manager who was motivated and ensured their staff team received formal and informal support. Audits and spot checks showed oversi

Inspection areas



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.