Clervaux Trust

Updated 26 July 2018

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.

An adult social care inspector started the inspection on 14 June and completed it on 3 July 2018. It included a visit to the care home and a visit to the office where the registered manager is based.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, the manager, a senior support worker, a support worker, an agency support worker and a range of staff who worked at the farm. We observed staff practices, looked at the care records of three people who used the service, staff records and information associated with the management of the service.

Before we visited the service we checked the information we held about this location and the provider, for example, inspection history, statutory notifications and complaints. A notification is a record about important events which the service is required to send to the Commission by law. We contacted professionals involved in caring for people who used the service, including commissioners and safeguarding staff. Information provided by these professionals was used to inform the inspection.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Updated 26 July 2018

This inspection took place on 19 June and 3 July 2018. We initially visited unannounced on 14 June 2018 but found everyone was out so let the provider know we would be inspecting and visited on the evening of 19 June 2018 so people would have had time to get back from the day services they attended. The registered manager's office was based at the provider’s main office Clow Beck Eco Centre (which staff and people who used the service called the farm) and we visited there on 3 July 2018. During the visit to the office we also saw all of the farm, textiles, woodwork, metal work and pottery facilities the people from Clervaux Trust can access.

Clervaux Trust is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. Clervaux Trust can accommodate up to three people. At the time of the inspection, there were three people using the service. One person needed support to attend to their personal care and another person lacked capacity to make decisions and needed verbal support from staff to assist them to manage their day-to-day activities.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The registered manager had recently left the service and the new manager was in the process of becoming registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like 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.

We last inspected the service in October 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good’ overall.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The manager understood their responsibilities around safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves. Support plans were in place that recorded people’s plans and wishes for their life.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We discussed how records could be enhanced to reflect the choices people made. The manager ensured measures were in place to assist staff evidence people’s choices and reflect any ‘best interests’ decisions.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of people being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs. People had access to a wide range of meaningful activities such as farming, animal care, pottery, woodwork, metal work and textile production at the provider’s farm.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

The service was clean and suitable for the people who used it, and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.