Cloverdale Care Home is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide care and accommodation for 40 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is on the outskirts of Laceby village, and is about six miles west of Grimsby.

The building is purpose built, with accommodation provided at ground level. All bedrooms are single and thirty-nine have en-suite facilities. Cloverdale Care Home is set in its own grounds and has pleasant views of open countryside. There is ample car parking available.

This inspection took place on 09 March 2017 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 18 September 2015 and was found to be compliant with the regulations inspected at that time.

At the time of the inspection 26 people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were cared for by staff who understood they had a duty to report any abuse so people were protected from harm. Staff had received training in how to identify and report abuse, and knew they could contact outside agencies if they wished. Staff, who had been recruited safely, were provided in enough numbers to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The service was kept clean and tidy and all areas were free from offensive odours. People’s medicines were handled safely by staff who had received regular training.

People received a wholesome, well balanced and nutritious diet, their likes and dislikes were catered for and there was a choice of food at all meals times. Staff monitored people’s dietary intake and made referrals to health care professionals when required. People who needed support with making informed decisions were protected by the use of legislation. Meetings were held with all those who had an interest in the person’s welfare to ensure any decisions made on their behalf where in their best interest. Staff had received training which equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring. Staff understood people’s needs and respected their privacy and dignity. People, who used the service, or those who acted on their behalf, were involved in the formulation of care plans; this ensured people received care which met their needs and was of their choosing. Staff understood the importance of keeping personal information about the people who used the service confidential.

Staff had access to detailed information which described the person and their preferences for care; this ensured the care people received was person centred and met their needs. People had access to a variety of activities both inside and outside of the service. The registered provider had an accessible complaints procedure which was displayed around the service.

Systems were in place which gathered the views of the people who used the service and those who had an interest in their welfare about the quality of the service provided. The registered manager was accessible and approachable. The quality of the service was audited regularly and any short falls were addressed through time limited action plans.

We observed that information was on display together with details about the service, to help people know what to expect from the service. We saw that staff maintained an open and friendly approach and interacted with people in a kind and considerate manner. We saw staff involving people sensitively in decisions about their support and observed that appropriate assistance was provided, to ensure people’s personal dignity was respected.

People who used the service told us staff supported them well with health and personal care needs and that prompt action was taken to get medical attention when required. Visiting relatives told us they were very satisfied with the service and that staff kept them informed about decisions. We saw that a district nurse had commented in a survey that, “Staff contact nurses promptly with any concerns” and “All carers are very friendly and caring and treat people with respect.”

People who used the service told us they received their medication at regular times and when it was required. We found that staff had completed training in the safe handling and administering of medication and that audits of this were carried out, to ensure accurate records were maintained.

We found that records were maintained of regular checks and servicing of equipment, to ensure people’s welfare was safety promoted.

People who used the service told us that overall were happy with the service provided and that they were confident appropriate action would be taken, to deal with any concerns should they arise.

People that used the service told us that staff listened to them and involved them in making decisions about their support, to ensure their wishes and needs were respected.

People that used the service told us staff were “helpful and kind.”

People that used the service said that staff supported their health and personal care needs well. People that used the service told us that staff took prompt action to get them medical attention when it was needed.

People that used the service told us that staff spent individual time with them to ensure their health and well being was promoted. We observed staff providing gentle support and assistance to people with personal manicures as part of a pampering session. One person told us that staff took them out in their wheel chair around the local village and that others had recently been out on a visit to Cleethorpes.

People told us they had had “no concerns” and that staff treated them well. People told us they felt “safe” living in the home.

People who used the service said that they were "very comfortable" living in the home and that staff were “good.”

People told us they were “very satisfied” with the service they received and were confident their views were taken seriously by the manager. People said they had "no complaints" about the home and confirmed they were able to make suggestions to help develop the service.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on the 18 & 21September 2015. The last full inspection took place on 27 August 2013 and the registered provider was compliant in all the areas we assessed.

Cloverdale Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 40 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is a purpose built, single storey service situated on the edge of Laceby village and has access to all local facilities. On the day of the inspection there were 24 people using the service.

The service did not have 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. The previous registered manager/provider had resigned two weeks before the inspection visit when the new acting manager commenced their role. The acting manager confirmed they would be submitting their application for registration.

We found the quality monitoring system had not been effective in highlighting some areas to improve and action had not been consistently taken in order to address shortfalls. Delays in renewal of the premises were evident however a major refurbishment programme was due to start the following month. The new regional manager had recently completed a full audit of the service and produced an action plan which they were working through. New quality monitoring systems were being introduced.

Efforts had been made to improve the standard of cleaning throughout the service since the new management team had taken over, however not all equipment was found to be clean. The acting manager took action to address this during the inspection.

We found staff ensured they gained consent from people prior to completing care tasks. In the main, staff worked within mental capacity legislation when people were assessed as not having capacity to make their own decisions. However, we found instances when best practice had not been followed; records to support decisions about active resuscitation were not in place to reflect capacity assessments and decision-making. The acting manager told us they would address this straight away.

People told us they felt safe living in the service. We saw staff interacting with people and they did so in a kind, caring and sensitive manner. Staff showed good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people.

We saw there was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We found staff had been recruited using a robust system that made sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. They had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by regular refresher training to update their knowledge and skills.

People received a well-balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the meals provided. We saw specialist dietary needs had been assessed and catered for.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and they had been involved in formulating and updating their care plan. The three care files we checked were individualised and reflected people’s needs and preferences in good detail. Care plans and risk assessments had mostly been reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

People told us in-house social activities were available, as well as occasional trips into the community. They said they also enjoyed going out with relatives.

People told us they had no complaints but would feel comfortable speaking to staff if they had any concerns. We saw the complaints policy was readily available to people who used or visited the service.

There were systems in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and the general facilities at the home.

People’s healthcare needs were met. People told us that they had access to their GP, dentist chiropodist and optician should they need it. The service kept clear records about all healthcare visits and appointments.