Clifton House

Updated 22 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 29 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 22 April 2021

Clifton House is a care home for up to 23 adults with enduring mental health needs. There were 21 people living there when we inspected. Accommodation is arranged over three floors, including two self-contained flats for supporting people towards a move to more independent accommodation. People have individual bedrooms and there are shared communal facilities, such as the lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathrooms.

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.