Archived: Canna

Canna provides residential care services to adults with learning disabilities. It accommodates up to four people The home is located close to Rotherham town centre and has parking and public transport access as well as local facilities nearby.

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff routinely promoted choice and independence, and spoke to people respectfully upholding their dignity. Care plans were highly personalised which indicated that staff understood people’s needs well. Care was reviewed regularly to ensure it met people’s needs, and where changes were required these were implemented. Each person had various programmes in place to assist them in developing skills and promoting independence. A visiting relative told us: “They have definitely empowered [my relative.]”

Staff were trained in relation to how to keep people safe from the risks of harm or abuse, and there was information available in the home for people using the service and staff about what action to take if abuse was suspected. Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate background checks being made. Records showed staff received training in a wide range of relevant areas, and staff told us training was plentiful and useful

Medicines were well managed, although we identified one area for improvement in relation to “as required” medicines. We discussed this with the registered manager during the inspection and they described what action they would take to address this.

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.

People using the service were encouraged to be involved in meal planning and preparation, and their nutrition and hydration needs had been assessed and were monitored.

There was a system in place for monitoring the quality of service people received, and making ongoing improvements as part of the monitoring system.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published July 2017)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

We inspected the home on 21 June 2017 and the visit was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in March 2015 when we rated it as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Canna’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

All of the people we spoke with who lived or were visiting Canna spoke positively about the home, the staff, the food, the activities and the care provision.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from abuse and risk assessments were in place to keep people as safe as possible.

People received inclusive, caring and mindful support from staff who knew them well and whose main aim was to support people to have the kind of life they wanted. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible while maintaining their safety.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

There was a structured recruitment system in place to help the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had undertaken a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This was followed by periodic refresher training and on-going support sessions.

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 support this practice.

People were fully involved in choosing the meals served at the home. They also took part in food shopping and helped to prepare meals.

Care files provided detailed up to date information about the areas people needed support in and reflected their preferences, which enabled staff to provide care and support that was tailored to their individual needs.

People had access to social activities that were based around their interests and hobbies. They told us they enjoyed the activities and outings they took part in.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns and there was a structured system in place for recording the detail and outcome of any concerns raised. This was also available in an easy to read version that used pictures to help people understand the process.

There was a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided. We also saw an audit system had been used to check if company policies had been followed and the premises were safe and well maintained.

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We spoke with people who used the service and they explained how their needs were met and the choices they were given. One person said, 'I am always asked what I would like to do and staff respect my decision.'

Peoples' needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us staff sat with them and explained their care plan to them.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment and when people were moved between different services. The provider ensured that appropriate information was passed on in a confidential manner.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining, recording and administering medicines.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate records were maintained.

We saw people who used the service had an individual care plan. This was based on their needs. One person said, 'I am involved in my care plan and make my own choices.'

We saw people were involved in planning, preparing and shopping for food. Safe practices were in place when dealing with food. People who used the service were encouraged to choose healthy options. One person said, 'The meals are lovely and I help to cook them.'

The home was clean and systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. One person said, 'We have a cleaning rota and we all help out.'

We found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were knowledgeable about their role and felt that the training they attended was good. One member of staff said, 'Training is always available and it is of good quality.'

People knew how to complain if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available. People who used the service told us that any concerns are discussed and resolved. One person said, 'I would discuss any problems with the staff and they would sort it out.'