Clover House

Updated 15 August 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 was planned to check 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 02 July 2018 and was announced. We announced the inspection as the home is small and we wanted to ensure the registered manager would be available for us to speak with at the home. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information available to us about this service. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts, share your experience forms and notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

We spoke with four people who lived at the home and two relatives. We spoke with the registered manager and three care staff.

We reviewed two people's care records, looked at three staff files and reviewed records related to the management of medicines, complaints, training and how the registered persons monitored the quality of the service.

Updated 15 August 2018

Clover House is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to six adults who have mental health issues and/or have learning disabilities. The home is an adapted building in Heysham with two small lounges, a dining area and a small garden. There were 6 people living at the home when we visited.

At our last inspection we rated the home good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the home has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the home remained Good.

The home had procedures to minimise the potential risk of abuse or unsafe care. Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to describe good practice about protecting people from potential abuse or poor practice. We did find some incidents had not been reported to CQC as per the regulations. We discussed this with the registered manager who was able to show us the incidents had been safeguarded and reported to the local authority as appropriate. We have made a recommendation about this.

During this inspection we found the principles of the MCA were not consistently embedded in practice. We found people’s capacity to consent to care had not always been assessed and information was, at times, conflicting. People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible. We have made a recommendation around this.

At the last inspection we found the provider did not have a response-planning document. This would show how the provider planned to operate in emergency situations, such as the outbreak of fire. During this inspection we checked to see the improvements made in this area. We found the home has implemented a full contingency business plan to ensure the home could continue to be provided in the event of an emergency.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. We found people were protected from risks associated with their care because the registered provider had completed risk assessments. These provided updated guidance for staff to keep people safe. Staff we spoke with demonstrated they were aware of the different risks people were vulnerable to.

We found recruitment of staff was safe at the home. We reviewed the staffing levels and found the home was adequately staffed.

Systems were in place that showed people's medicines were managed consistently and safely by staff. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to infection control and they told us they were provided with personal protective equipment.

The staff training is ongoing and evidence has been seen of staff completing training. We asked the registered provider how they obtained and implemented information on best practice guidance and legislation. They told us they attended all relevant conferences and provider forums. They commented involvement helped gather and share good practice.

Peoples needs for nutrition and fluids had been considered. Files contained likes and dislikes with regards to food and drink. The people we spoke with said they were given choices on what meals they wanted making and choices of drinks. One person told us, “The food is goods.” Another said, “The staff can cook.”

We received consistent positive feedback about care provided at Clover House from people who lived at the home and their relatives. We observed staff as they went about their duties and provided care and support. We saw staff speaking with people who lived at the home in a respectful and dignified manner.

The registered manager and staff told us they fully involved people and their families in their care planning. People's beliefs, likes and wishes were recorded within care records and guidance in these records reflected what staff and people told us about their preferences.

People told us they were encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. None of the people spoken with had had cause to raise concerns and were happy with the service they received.

We observed people being offered opportunities to go out for the day or to take part in activities as they wished.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to have a good end of life as well as living life to full whilst they were fit and able to do so. We saw evidence that plans had been discussed with people living at Clover House.

The management team and staff were able to demonstrate a shared responsibility for promoting people's wellbeing, safety and security. There was a clear vision and credible strategy to deliver high quality care and support at the hone. Staff were aware and involved in this vision and the values shared. There was a positive staff culture at the home.

The management and staff team were open and transparent in providing information and worked well with the inspection team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.