Background to this inspection
Updated
31 May 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.
This inspection took place on 9 April 2018 and was announced.
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. The inspection site visit activity took place on 9 April 2018. It included talking to staff and the registered manager, spending time in the company of some people who had come in to meet with us, and to review care records and policies and procedures.
The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert had experience of caring for a family member, and made telephone calls to people and relatives who had given us permission to do so.
We spoke with three people who used the service, six relatives, seven staff and the registered
manager. We looked at three people's care records, three staff recruitment files, quality assurance records, complaints, compliments, staff training records and accident and incident records.
On this occasion, we had not asked the provider to send us a provider information return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service. This includes what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this to help plan our inspection. The provider sent us further information after the inspection.
As part of planning the inspection, we also checked if the provider had sent us any notifications. These contain details of events and incidents the provider is required to notify us about by law, including unexpected deaths and injuries occurring to people receiving care. We also looked at any information that had been sent to us by the commissioners of the service and Healthwatch. This helped us plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection visit.
After the inspection, the provider provided us with further information we had requested and did so in a timely way.
Updated
31 May 2018
This provider was last inspected on 23 September 2015. At that time it was rated as good in all areas. This inspection took place on 9 April 2018 and was announced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and phone calls were made to relatives and people by an Expert by Experience. Claremont House is a domiciliary care agency, registered to provide personal care to people living with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 22 people were in receipt of personal care from the provider. It provides a service to younger disabled adults. Not everyone using Claremont House receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people do receive personal care, we also take into account any wider social care provided.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
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. There was a Registered Manager in place.
People who used the service were safe. Their risks were well managed and they were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff. Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from the risk of abuse and harm and their responsibilities to report suspected abuse. People were supported with their medicines safely.
People were supported by regular staff who had been suitably recruited. Relatives told us they received reliable care from a regular team of staff who understood peoples’ likes, dislikes and preferences for care and support.
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 supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
People's needs were monitored and responded to appropriately. People's interests and preferences were known to staff who encouraged them to pursue social events and areas of interest. Social inclusion was an important priority for people and the staff who supported them. Staff were caring and showed commitment to the people they supported. People felt they mattered to staff and were involved in every aspect of their lives.
People and their relatives were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service for example, to key workers and through monthly questionnaires. The registered manager had a clear vision for the service that was shared by the staff team. This vision was about complete inclusion and involvement of people and staff in shaping their lives and the service.
Leadership of the service at all levels was open and transparent and supported a positive culture.