Clova House Residential Care Home

Clova House is a residential care home, providing personal care support for up to 20 people. At the time of our inspection 19 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us that there were sometimes not enough staff. We observed staff working hard to meet people’s needs. Rota’s confirmed there were sometimes less staff, this would impact on timeliness of staff support.

Medicines were given as prescribed, however sufficient records were not always kept. This could impact on the safe administration of medicine.

Some mental capacity assessments were not in place. This meant people were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. These policies and systems put people at risk of not being supported in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

The environment was not sufficiently clean and required some renovation. The registered manager advised that renovation was planned.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had good knowledge of how to support people and records were in place to guide safe care. Care was delivered in line with recognised standards. Different professionals visited the service and their advice was documented and followed.

Staff were not always safely recruited, for example one staff member had no references from a previous role. Staff had not received all their training, but we did not see any impact on their work. Staff had good knowledge.

People had access to a balanced diet. They spoke positively about the quality of the food supplied at the service. Where people required support to eat, this was done in a caring way.

Staff were caring and we observed positive interactions between people and staff. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported to have good quality care at the end of their lives.

People could complete routines as they preferred. Staff knew peoples preferences. People’s diverse needs (for example, religion) were recognised and supported. The service told us that they had activities provided at the service, we observed a visiting activity provider. There were no records kept of activities for us to assess the range of activities at the service.

People were given information in a way they could understand. This met the legal requirement of the accessible information standard (2016).

People told us that they felt they would be listened to if they made a complaint. No formal complaints had been made since the last inspection.

The registered manager and staff spoke clearly about how people’s experiences and needs always come first. There was a clear governance framework to ensure people’s needs were met safely and effectively. Where concerns were raised at the inspection visit, the provider responded promptly to our concerns. They advised they will work to address these concerns and improve the service. We will assess the effectiveness of this at our next inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 March 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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.

Clova House Residential Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to 20 older people. At the time of our inspection, there were 16 people using the service. The service is a converted domestic dwelling located in a residential area of Shelton Lock, Derby. Accommodation is provided across two floors and is served by both a passenger lift and a stair lift.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff and the care provided. Staff understood safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and knew how to keep people safe.

The risks to people's safety and well-being had been assessed and minimised. Staff knew what action they needed to take to keep people safe and followed risk assessments to promote people's safety.

There were enough staff to provide safe and effective care for people. Staff were recruited in accordance with the provider's recruitment procedures. This helped to ensure staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

People received their medicines they needed when they needed them. Further improvements were needed to medicine records to ensure these were completed accurately and correctly and to the storage of medicines to ensure the condition of medicines was maintained.

Further improvements were needed to the management and storage of laundry to ensure laundry was managed in line with infection control guidance.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and the registered manager provided staff with clear guidance and leadership. Staff had completed a range of training and qualifications they needed and we saw they used this knowledge to provide people with safe and effective care.

Staff ensured people's rights and best interests by working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to obtain consent or appropriate authorisation for their care. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent from people before providing care and support. Mental capacity assessments required further development to ensure they were decision and time specific. This is important to ensure that people are able to make their own decisions and where they lack mental capacity, any made on their behalf are made in their best interests.

People were positive about the food provided and enjoyed their meals. People were supported to eat and drink in sufficient amounts. People were supported to maintain and improve their health and nutrition and had access to a range of health care professionals who worked with staff to support people's well-being.

Staff were caring and attentive in their approach to meeting people's needs. People told us they felt staff treated them with dignity and respect and supported them to maintain their privacy when they needed assistance.

Staff knew people well and used the information they had about people's interests and preferences to provide care that was person centred. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in the development of their care plan. Where people's needs changed, people were involved and consulted to ensure care plans reflected people's current needs and preferences as to how they wanted their care to be provided. Staff supported people to pursue activities that were in keeping with their interests. The registered manager was in the process of developing support for activities to ensure people had more opportunities for one-to-one support.

People were informed and knew how to raise any complaints or concerns about the service. People and their relatives had confidence that their concerns would be listened to and acted on.

The registered manager oversaw all aspects of the service. People, relatives and staff told us they had confidence in the registered manager and the provider and felt the service was well-managed. People, relatives and staff were able to approach the provider and registered manager and share their views on a regular basis.

The provider consulted with people, relatives and staff when proposing changes and improvements to the service. These included changes to the environment, working practices and systems. The provider had a system in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, we found that quality assurance systems were fragmented and required further improvement to enable the provider to assure themselves that people were receiving good care.