Archived: Clearview

Updated 23 March 2018

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

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector on 10 February 2018 and was unannounced. Following our inspection we contacted three relatives of people who used the service, to obtain their feedback.

Prior to the inspection we looked at other information we held about the service such as notifications and previous reports. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. At our last inspection of the service in December 2015 we did not identify any concerns with the care provided to people.

During this inspection we met and spent time with all seven people who lived at the service. Most of the people living at the service had complex needs which meant they had limited ability to communicate and tell us about their experience of being supported by the staff team. Therefore we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people living in the service. We looked around the premises and spoke to the provider, the newly appointed manager and four members of staff.

We looked at records relating to the individual’s care and the running of the home. These included care and support plans and records relating to medication administration and finance records. We also looked at how the provider ensured the quality monitoring of the service. This included feedback, audits and maintenance records.

Updated 23 March 2018

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 10 February 2018.

Clearview provides care and accommodation for up to seven people with learning disabilities. On the days of our inspection there were seven people living at the care home. In relation to Registering the Right Support we found this service was doing all the right things, ensuring choice and maximum control. Registering the Right Support (RRS) sets out CQC’s policy registration, variations to registration and inspecting services supporting people with a learning disability and/or autism.

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 currently have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. However, a new manager had started work this week who had plans to apply for registration with the CQC.

The Provider Information Return (PIR), where we ask providers to tell us what they do well and what they would so better, said; “Our Director (provider) has owned the business for nearly 20 years and has always promoted a positive culture that is open and person centred.”

At the last inspection on the 5 December 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People were not able to verbalise their views and staff used other methods of communication, for example pictures or sign language. We met and spoke to all the people during our visit and observed the interaction between them and the staff.

People remained safe at the service. People were protected by safe recruitment process which helped to ensure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable people where employed. Staff said there were sufficient staff employed to meet the needs of people and support them with any activities or trips out. One staff said people were safe because; “We all work together to keep people safe.”

People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe. Risk assessments had been completed to enable people to retain as much independence as possible. People received their medicines safely by suitably trained staff.

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. All staff had completed a range of training such as safeguarding training and new staff completed the Care Certificate (a nationally recognised training course for staff new to care). The new manager confirmed that the Care Certificate training included a section on the Equality and Diversity needs of people.

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. People’s end of life wishes were not currently documented, however the new manager had plans to discuss this issue with relatives, advocates and involve people as much as possible. People's health was monitored by the staff and they had access to a variety of healthcare professionals. This helped ensure people’s healthcare needs were met.

People’s care and support was based on legislation and best practice guidelines; helping to ensure the best outcomes for people. People’s legal rights were up held and consent to care was sought as much as possible. Care records were person centred and held full details on how people liked their needs to be met; taking into account people’s preferences and wishes. Information recorded included people’s previous medical and social history and people’s cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

People were observed to be treated with kindness and compassion by all the staff who valued them. The staff, had worked for the company for some time and built strong relationships with people who lived there. Staff respected people’s privacy. People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support. People had complex communication needs and these were individually assessed and met. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. The provider had a complaints policy in place and the new manager said any complaints received would be fully investigated and responded to in line with the company’s policy. Staff knew people well and used this to gauge how people were feeling. The policy was not provided in an accessible format for people. However, the provider and staff demonstrated they would always act on changes in people’s presentation.

The service continued to be well led. People lived in a service where the provider’s values and vision were embedded into the service, staff and culture. Staff told us the provider, who had been overseeing the service in the absence of a registered manager, was very approachable and made themselves available. The provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

People lived in a service which had been designed and adapted to meet their needs. The service was monitored by the provider to help ensure its ongoing quality and safety. The provider’s governance framework, helped monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.