The inspection was unannounced, and took place on 1 September 2017. This was the home’s first inspection since it registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2016.

Clifton Court is a residential service for people with acquired brain injury. The service accommodates up to seven people. At the time of the inspection, six people were using the service. The home comprises seven self-contained flats each with their own bathroom and kitchenette, as well as a larger communal kitchen and dining room, a shared lounge and a therapy gym.

Clifton Court is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, in a quiet area within walking distance of the town centre, with bus and rail links.

At the time of the inspection, the service had 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.

During the inspection people told us that they were very happy with the service they received, and staff we spoke with and observed understood people’s needs and preferences extremely well. When we observed care and support taking place, staff demonstrated that they were patient and thoughtful in their interactions with people; they showed a genuine warmth and respect for people.

People told us that staff were kind and approachable, with one person saying: “They are really kind, they’ve got time for us, I can talk about my issues and progress and they really care.” Another said: “I’m involved in everything about my care. I know what’s in my records and I discuss it with the staff.” They went on to say: “I’ve got a care plan and goals, the staff help me with my goals and how to meet them.”

Staff were creative in their approach to supporting people with activities and enabling them to maintain social and family links. One person told us: “If I change my mind about doing something, the staff are fine with it; they make it clear it’s about me and what I feel like.” Another said: “I didn’t know about a lot of the things they [the staff] have found for me; it’s been brilliant.”

There was a complaints system in place, and the provider ensured that people were aware of the arrangements for making complaints should they wish to. There were arrangements in place to regularly review people’s needs and preferences, so that their care could be appropriately tailored.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to keep people safe from the risks of harm or abuse, and were well trained in relation to this. Medicines were stored and handled safely.

Where people were at risk of injuring themselves or others, staff had the training and understanding which enabled them to address this. Recruitment procedures and audit procedures were sufficiently robust to ensure people’s safety.

Staff within the home understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the procedures to follow should someone lack the capacity to give consent.

Meals were designed to ensure people received nutritious food which promoted good health but also reflected their preferences. Where people were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration this was monitored by the provider.

There was a comprehensive system in place for auditing the quality of the service provided, and this contributed to continuous improvement.

People were regularly asked for their views about the service, and they told us they felt they were involved in the running of the home.