We carried out a review of the data available to us about 1-2 Canterbury Close 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 1-2 Canterbury Close, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff and people using the service all undertook a regular programme of testing to keep everyone safe and free from infection. Staff and visitors were subject to a range of screening procedures such as a temperature check and providing a negative test before entering the premises. Staff used appropriate PPE and were encouraged to change surgical masks when leaving and re-entering the building.
There were no shortages of PPE and all staff we observed were wearing appropriate PPE when supporting people. We saw ample stocks of PPE and cleaning equipment.
The premises were visibly clean and in good order. Cleaning schedules were in place and included regular cleaning of touch points around the home, such as door handles and light switches.
Appropriate disposal arrangements were in place for clinical waste. Policies and procedures were in line with current government guidance and used to inform staff, people and their families. Governance arrangements ensured that IPC policies and procedures were met.
1 – 2 Canterbury Close is care home providing care and support for 10 adults with a learning disability at the time of our inspection. The service can support up to 10 people.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design, it was two separate domestic style properties that fitted into the residential area. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe, and staff we spoke with understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment systems were in place and followed. Medication management was safe, people received their medication as prescribed. Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified, contained good detail to ensure risks were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were monitored, however, due to an increase in incidents over the last few weeks the systems could have been improved to ensure lessons were learnt.
Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s needs, care was person-centred and individualised. Staff said training was good. Our observations evidenced this was effective. Staff were supervised and supported.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received a healthy balanced diet that met their needs. People had regular access to health care professionals, changes in needs were identified and responded to appropriately.
The environment and décor was tired, not all areas were well maintained, therefore were not always able to be effectively cleaned. However, this had been identified and was being addressed. There was access to well maintained outside space.
Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Our observations evidenced staff interacted positively with people and knew them well. People were involved in their care planning if they wished or were able, to ensure their decisions and choices were reflected. We looked at care records and found they had identified people’s needs and reflected people’s choices. One person’s care plan did not reflect their needs fully, however this was addressed immediately by the registered manager.
People received individualised, personalised care. People were listened to and complaints were appropriately dealt with and resolved. Where appropriate end of life care was included in care plans to ensure people’s decisions were respected.
Quality monitoring was carried out using various audits tools. The service promoted an open, inclusive and positive culture. People and relatives were involved in the service, quality questionnaires were sent out and regular meetings were held.
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 May 2017). The service remains rated good.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
At the last inspection on the December 2014 the service was rated Good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘1 – 2 Canterbury Close on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’
At this unannounced inspection on the 28 March 2017 we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.
The service has 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.
Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of potential abuse and aware of the reporting procedures. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place. We received extremely positive feedback form people who used the service and their relatives. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and relatives also said the home provided safe care.
Robust recruitments procedures ensured the right staff were employed to meet people’s needs safely.
At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Relatives we spoke with confirmed when they visited there were sufficient staff on duty. Relatives also told us there were adequate staff to facilitate regular activities.
Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications safely, which included key staff receiving medication training and regular audits of the system.
People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People were treated with respect .People and their relatives told us staff were kind and very caring. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of how they respected people’s preferences and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained. We saw staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences while supporting them.
People could take part in activities of their own choice and there were also organised group activities. People also received one to one support for activities in the community and had an organised holiday each year.
There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. People told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns with the management team.
Relatives were very happy with how the service was run. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans were implemented for any improvements required and these were followed by staff. The quality monitoring had identified that some environmental improvements were required, however, the provider had not approved these and we had no date for work to commence. Since our inspection we have been informed they are approved and awaiting confirmation of start dates.
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 19 December 2014 and was unannounced. We last inspected the service in November 2013 and found they were meeting the regulations we looked at.
Canterbury Close is a care home for people with learning disabilities. It can accommodate up to 10 people in two purpose build properties. It is close to Rotherham and local amenities. At the time of our inspection there were 9 people living in the home.
The service has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. One person said, “I feel very safe here, I am settled I don’t want to move anywhere else.”
Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable regarding safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures and were able to explain the action required should an allegation of abuse be made.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. The staff we spoke with during our inspection understood the importance of the Mental Capacity Act in protecting people and the importance of involving people in making decisions.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to
recruitment of staff were followed and all required information was obtained to help the employer make safer recruitment decisions.
People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. We observed the meal time and people told us that they enjoyed the food and there was always an alternative if they didn’t like what was on the menu. One person said, “The food here is good. I can choose what I want to eat, today I have had soup for lunch.”
People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made.
People had access to activities that were provided both in-house and in the community. One person told us they were going to shopping on the day of our inspection. There was a mini bus available for people to use so they were able to access the community.
We observed good interactions between staff and people who used the service and the atmosphere was happy, relaxed and inclusive. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.
People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it. People we spoke with told us they had not had to raise any complaints or concerns since they had lived at Canterbury Close.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress. This ensured actions were completed to improve service delivery.
People also told us that staff treated them with respect, listened to them, gave them choices, made them feel safe and supported them. One person we spoke with said, 'All the staff are great they all help me and listen to my choices.' People we spoke with also told us, 'I feel safe living here.'
There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection within the home. We observed the environment to be maintained in a clean condition. The manager had identified areas that required further improvement and these were being rectified by the provider.
We found there was an effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff received appropriate professional development.
There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was a complaints policy that took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.
We observed interactions and care practices during our visit and observed that some activities were arranged, one person was playing skittles when we arrived and was arranging to go out in the afternoon. We were able to speak with two people who used the service and they told us that they liked living at Canterbury Close and were able to go out.