Carlene House

Updated 8 November 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Carlene House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. The provider explained that due to circumstances beyond their control, there was a delay in the application process for the manager to register with us. Registered managers similar to providers are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service one and half hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before inspection:

We reviewed the information we held about the registered provider, including previous notifications. A notification is information about important events, which the registered provider is required to send to us by law. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

During our inspection:

We spoke with four people who used the service, two members of staff and the manager. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not speak with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and multiple medicine records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment, training and staff supervision records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service and a sample of policies and procedures.

After the inspection:

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to corroborate evidence found. We spoke with three relatives by telephone to obtain their views of the service.

Updated 8 November 2019

About the service:

Carlene House provides care and support for up to ten adults with learning disabilities. Ten people were using the service at the time of inspection.

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.

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

There were systems to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to people who used the service. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures. There were enough staff to meet their care and support needs. The provider had a system in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents. Medicines were managed in a safe way. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs. They had access to appropriate health care professionals 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 encouraged people to have a healthy and nutritious diet.

People were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity were respected. They received care and support from staff who knew them well. Staff supported people to maintain their independence where possible. People were able to make choices about their care and their views were taken into account.

People received personalised care, which was recorded in their care plans and reflected their wishes and preferences. Care plans were reviewed and updated in a timely manner. People were supported to engage in meaningful activities of their choice and were involved in the local community. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about the support they received.

There was an open culture within the service, which was focussed on people. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them. There was a quality assurance system in place to monitor the quality of the service people received. The provider continually sought feedback about the service from people, relatives, staff and other professionals.

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

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 28 April 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.