Archived: Cleveland House Limited

Updated 22 February 2017

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 inspection took place on 08 January 2017 and was an unannounced visit. The inspection was conducted by one adult social care inspector. We reviewed the information we already held about the service and any feedback we had received. We also looked to see if the service had submitted statutory notifications and to see if other professionals had sent us feedback on the service.

During the inspection we were able to talk to four people who lived in the home and observed the support of staff. We talked with the five staff members on duty. We also talked with the registered manager and the senior support worker. Later we telephoned relatives of the people who used the service and professionals involved in their care to get their views about the service. We were able to speak to three family members.

We observed the provision of support for the majority of people who lived at the home. We reviewed a range of documentation including three care plans, medication records, records for five staff, policies and procedures, auditing records, health and safety records and other records relating to how the home was managed.

Before the inspection, 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

We asked the manager to send information regarding training and various policies. This was done promptly following the inspection.

Updated 22 February 2017

This comprehensive inspection took place on 08 January 2017. Cleveland House Limited is registered to provide personal care for a maximum of 25 adults with a learning disability. The home is spaced over two large adjoining three storey properties that had a large extension located in a residential area of Broadstairs, Kent.

The home required 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. There was a registered manager in place who had been in post since April 2011.

We saw that all of the communal internal and external areas in the home appeared bright and welcoming and the manager informed us that there was an on-going process of implementing improvements the home and we saw an improvement in the systems that had been prioritised.

We found that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) 2009 legislation had been adhered to in the home. The manager told us of the people at the home who lacked capacity and found that the appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people’s care.

The people living in the home were able to express themselves through residents meeting and monthly keyworker meetings. People were able to choose the way they spent their day. They were taken to activities outside the home and encouraged to keep family connections by visiting family where possible.

People had access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were given suitable menu choices at each mealtime, these options had been chosen by the people who lived at Cleveland House. Lunchtimes were sociable and pleasant.

We found that staff were well trained and supported. They were able to demonstrate skill and competency in their knowledge about autism and the support people required. The people who lived at the home were clearly happy with the support that staff gave them and there was a good rapport between them.

We checked the medication cabinets which was stored in a clinic room. We saw that medication was given as directed and stored appropriately. We talked with staff who were able to demonstrate their knowledge of safeguarding and were able to tell us how to report abuse.

Each of the people’s living areas had been personalised by the people who lived in them and those who were able were able to lock their bedroom doors, choose who entered their rooms and go in and out of the front door freely.

Care records, risk assessments, staff records and other documents relating to the running of the home were up-to-date. Each person living at the home had a personalised care plan and risk assessment.

We found that recruitment practices were in place which included the completion of pre-employment checks prior to a new member of staff working at the service. Staff received regular training and supervision to enable them to work safely and effectively.