We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cloverdale 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 Cloverdale, you can give feedback on this service.
Cloverdale is a residential care home which provides accommodation and support to four people who have a learning disability and who may also have a physical health condition.
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
Relatives told us the service was exceptionally well-led. One said, the service provided, “Excellent care" and another commented, “The manager is very skilled she is always thinking about what improvements she can make." The registered manager had created a relaxed and highly person centred culture. Staff were motivated and proud to work for the service. The registered manager continually reflected with staff and people about what could be improved. This had led to significantly improved outcomes for people, in terms of a reduction in presenting behaviours, better quality of life, increased level of satisfaction, increased independence, increased levels of community participation, more fulfilling activities and improvements to the living environment.
People and relatives told us staff really cared. We observed staff were very caring towards people. They liked being with the staff. The registered manager led by example and modelled the behaviours she expected from staff. Staff supported people to express their views and to be as actively involved in decisions about their care as possible. People’s privacy and dignity were fully respected and promoted by staff.
The provider had robust systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. People were supported to stay safe, whilst any restrictions on their freedoms were kept to a minimum. There were always sufficient suitable staff deployed to support people and ensure their safety. Processes were in place to ensure the safe management of medicines. People were supported to minimise their need and use of medicines to ensure they only took what they absolutely needed in line with national guidance. Staff ensured people were protected from the risk of acquiring an infection.
People’s needs were holistically assessed and the delivery of their care was based on national good practice guidance. This achieved good outcomes for people. People were cared for by staff who were well trained and supported within their role. They had the skills to meet people’s specific care needs. Staff ensured people were offered a range of healthy meals. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and were prompt to refer people to other services as required. People’s environment met their needs and they had chosen how to decorate it.
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.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. The service was flexible to changes in people’s care needs. People attended different activities which met their current preferences and interests. People were supported to identify areas for self-development and actively supported to meet their goals. Processes were in place to respond to any complaints received.
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 (06 July 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. 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.
Cloverdale provides accommodation and support to four people who have a learning disability and who may also have a physical health condition. People who live at Cloverdale may experience behaviours that challenge staff.
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
Rating at this inspection
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated good.
Processes, procedures and staff training were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people, had been identified, assessed and managed whilst respecting their individual freedoms and rights. Staffing levels and recruitment processes were appropriate to ensure people were supported safely. Arrangements were in place to receive, record, store and handle medicines safely and securely.
People were cared for by staff who had received appropriate training, support and supervision in their role. 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 were enabled to eat and drink sufficient for their needs and to make choices about what they ate and drank. Staff supported people to see a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health.
People enjoyed positive relationships with staff. They were actively supported by staff to be involved in day to day decisions about their care. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity was upheld.
Each person had an individual assessment of their support needs and associated support guidelines for staff regards how to provide their care; which were reviewed with them and their families. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible both within the service and in the community. Each person had their own activity schedule tailored to activities that interested them. Processes were in place to enable people to make complaints and these were responded to appropriately.
A new manager had commenced their post just prior to this inspection. Staff and relatives reported the service was “Well-led.” Staff said they had felt well supported during the short period of transition between managers; which had gone smoothly. Staff applied the provider’s values during the course of their work with people. People’s views about their care were sought and acted upon to improve their experience of the care provided. Processes were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 19 January 2015 and was unannounced. Cloverdale provides accommodation and support to four people who have a learning disability and who may have physical health conditions such as epilepsy. People who live at Cloverdale may experience behaviours that challenge staff.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
One person’s relative told us their daughter had “Changed a lot” and “She is happy there.” A person said “I can say if I am unhappy.” They also said staff were nice and they felt safe with them. People were observed to be relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. People’s physical environment was safe for them. Staff had received relevant training on how to safeguard people and understood their roles and responsibilities. Risks to people both at home and in the community had been assessed. Staff managed risks to people effectively whilst ensuring their rights to make choices were respected. Staff were able to identify risks to people’s wellbeing and health, and took appropriate actions to support their safety.
A relative told us staffing was stable. Staffing was sufficient to support people on a day to day basis and was flexible if their needs changed. The service currently had one staff vacancy, which was being covered by other staff and the registered manager. This ensured people received consistent care.
People’s medicines were managed safely, because staff were appropriately trained and supported to administer medicines. When incidents had occurred lessons had been learnt by staff about how to reduce the risk of their re-occurrence, and practices had been changed accordingly.
Staff received an induction into their role and ongoing supervision and support. In addition to the provider’s required training, staff undertook additional training to enable them to meet the individual needs of the people they cared for effectively.
People were supported to make their own decisions. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make specific decisions staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This ensured any decisions made were in the person’s best interests. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Applications had been submitted for the four people who lived at the service. We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People were seen to enjoy their food and told us they liked to join in cooking. Staff supported people to make choices about their food and drink. Potential risks to people associated with eating and drinking, such as the risk of choking or an allergic reaction to food had been assessed and managed.
People’s healthcare needs had been identified and they were supported to access a range of health care services. People were referred to health care specialists if required. People received support from staff to ensure they maintained good health.
Staff valued and respected people. They displayed people’s arts and crafts and enabled them to make choices about how they wanted their bedrooms and the service to be decorated. People were supported to dress in their own style. Staff understood people’s individual interests and preferences. They met with people regularly to discuss and plan their care. Where people had particular interests or wishes they were assisted to meet them. People received their support from staff who cared about them and involved them in daily life. People were supported to maintain contact with their families. Their wishes were listened to and respected.
People were encouraged and enabled to be as independent as possible. Staff followed guidance when supporting people to enable them to do tasks for themselves.
People were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Their care plans reflected their diverse needs. Staff read people’s care plans before providing them with support and followed the guidance provided.
People were encouraged to participate in a range of community activities. They took part in activities during the week. There was only one driver for the minibus but staff ensured this did not impact on people’s ability to go out and arranged alternative transport when required.
There were processes in place to enable people to raise any concerns they might have. Staff met with people on a one to one basis and there were monthly resident meetings. Details of the complaints process were displayed in an appropriate format for people to read.
The provider had aims and objectives in relation to the support people should expect to receive. Staff understood these and put them into practice when delivering people’s care. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the culture of the service. People were supported by staff who were encouraged to speak up if they had concerns.
A relative told us the service was well-led and they could speak with the manager anytime. The registered manager was accessible and supportive to people and staff. The registered manager understood the challenges of the service and how stressful an environment it could be for staff to work in. She was supported in her role by the operations manager. People’s care was provided by staff who received good management and leadership.
The views of people, their relatives and professionals such as social workers, nurses and GP’s were sought through the annual quality survey which had just been circulated. The provider had quality assurance systems in place which were used to regularly monitor the quality of the service people received. Where issues were identified or incidents had occurred actions had been taken. The quality of people’s care was monitored and improvements made where required.