We carried out a review of the data available to us about Clifton House 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 Clifton House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
At the time of our visit the service had not had any people using the service that had tested positive for COVID-19.
The service was free from clutter and clean. The service had comprehensive cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available in the service's reception area and office. Handwashing guidance was displayed above sinks and throughout the service.
The service provided effective and safe ways for people to visit their relatives during the Covid-19 pandemic. Visiting arrangements were compliant with Public Health England (PHE) guidance. Families and carers had been contacted by staff about the service’s visiting arrangements.
The service had a gazebo in the garden that was used as a visiting hub. Families and carers could book visits to see their relatives in the gazebo. Prior to visiting all visitors had temperatures taken and a COVID-19 lateral flow test, this is a rapid test to detect COVID-19. The service provided visitors with personal protective equipment (PPE).
People using the service could video call their friends and family by prior arrangement. Friends and family could telephone their loved ones at any time.
The service had a contingency plan in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. This would involve people using the service self-isolating in their rooms and a communal bathroom and toilet being quarantined for the sole use of people that tested positive for COVID-19.
The service participated in the whole home testing programme, this meant people living in the home were tested for COVID-19 every 28 days. The service's staff were tested for COVID-19 every seven days, this was supplemented by twice weekly lateral flow testing,
The service had systems in place to ensure staff isolated for the required period should they test positive for COVID-19. Staff breaks whilst at work were staggered to ensure social distancing.
To enable staff in providing care safely, staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control and COVID-19 awareness. This ensured they understood the actions to take if they or the people using the service became symptomatic.
The service had up to date infection prevention and control (IPC) policies in place. IPC audits included extra measures the service had put in place due to COVID-19 and were completed regularly.
At our last inspection we rated the service 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 service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection we found the service remained good. The service met all fundamental standards.
People told us they felt safe living at Clifton House. Risks were assessed and managed in a way that as far as possible promoted people’s freedom and independence. Medicines were stored securely and managed safely. There was regular maintenance and the premises were kept in a clean, comfortable, safe condition. Appropriate infection control procedures, such as regular cleaning, were observed. People were involved in decisions about the building and garden.
People spoke highly of the staff and told us there were enough on duty to provide the support they needed. There was a robust recruitment process to ensure new staff were suitable to work in a care setting. People said the staff were able to provide the support they needed. Staff were well supported through training, supervision and appraisal.
Lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong. Accidents and incidents were recorded on the provider’s computerised monitoring system, enabling monitoring and trend analysis at head office level. The outcomes of accident and incident investigations were circulated to staff and where necessary were discussed in staff meetings.
People had the care and support they needed. This promoted a good quality of life, achieved good outcomes and reflected good practice. There was an emphasis on meaningful activity to promote people’s physical and mental wellbeing. People were supported to have a healthy diet if they chose, and to get involved in preparing food. They had the support they needed to manage their health, including accessing healthcare. The registered manager and staff worked in cooperation with community mental health and social care staff to ensure people’s support needs were met.
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 encouraged to express their views and be involved in planning their care and support.
People said staff treated them kindly. All the interactions we saw and heard were professional and respectful but human, staff talking with people as adults and listening to what they said. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.
The provider had an ethos of person-centred support for people in recovery from mental distress. This was clearly reflected in the way Clifton House was run. The voices of people and staff were heard and acted upon to shape the service. People and staff expressed confidence in the way the service was led, saying the registered manager was approachable and supportive.
There was a system in place for the registered manager and provider to monitor the quality of the service. There was a clear complaints procedure, which was well publicised. The incident reporting system enabled the provider’s management to view accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding to identify any trends. Learning from these was shared with staff and acted upon.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Clifton House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 23 people. The home supports people with enduring mental health needs. The premises provide accommodation over three floors, including two self-contained flats for supporting people to prepare to move on to more independent accommodation. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people living at the home.
The home is required to have 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. The current home manager was not registered with the Commission but had applied to register as manager.
At the last inspection of the home in September 2013 the home was meeting Regulations and standards prevailing at that time.
Staff received regular training in safeguarding adults and were aware of how to report any concerns. Procedures and information about potential abuse had also been discussed with people at residents’ meetings.
The building had been risk assessed, identifying any potential hazards. Action had been taken to make sure the premises were managed safely.
Risk assessments had also been completed with respect to ensuring that care and support of people was managed safely. There were well-developed systems for both reporting and analysing any incidents or accidents that occurred in the home.
There were robust staff recruitment procedures followed to make sure competent staff were employed to work with people. All the required checks had been carried out with records of checks in place.
The home had sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people accommodated.
Medicines were managed safely in the home.
The staff team were well-trained and there were systems in place to make sure staff received training when required. Making sure staff received update training was to be taken forward by the new manager.
The home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It had not been necessary to make any referrals to the local authority for people to be deprived of their liberty.
People’s consent was gained for how they were cared for and supported.
Staff were supported through one to one supervision and annual appraisals.
People were provided with a good standard of food and their nutritional needs were met.
People were positive about the staff team and the good standards of care provided in the home. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.
Care planning was effective and up to date, making sure people’s needs were met.
The home provided a programme of activities to keep people meaningfully occupied.
The home had a well-publicised complaints policy and people had confidence that any complaint would be taken seriously and responded to.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people.
There was good leadership of the home and a positive ethos and culture prevailing in the home.
People were consulted and involved in the way they were cared for. Some people had been assessed as not having the mental capacity to take responsibility to manage some key areas of their lives, such as managing their financial affairs. In these circumstances we saw that best interest decisions had been made and there was the appropriate documentation in place.
People's needs had been assessed and care plans put in place to support people appropriately.
Medicines were well-managed so that there were safe systems in place.
The home had robust recruitment procedures in place that were followed to make sure that appropriate staff were employed to support people at the home.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people living at Clifton House.
People were treated respectfully and their privacy and dignity promoted by the attitudes of the staff and the policies of the organisation. The ethos is that Clifton House is the people's home and staff are there by invitation to support people. People told us that staff were respectful. One person said, 'The staff are very helpful and I get on with them'.
People's care and welfare needs were met through thorough assessments of their needs. There was a good care planning system in place. The care plans we saw reflected people's needs and were underpinned by risk assessments.
People were protected from the risk of abuse through staff being trained about abuse. Policies and procedures were in place to support the staff training.
The home was well managed. There were good systems in place to make sure that the home was run in the interests of people living at Clifton House.