Clayton Manor

Service governance, including ensuring robust monitoring, record-keeping and implementing of lessons learned, needed to be improved to underpin a consistently safe, quality service. We made a recommendation regarding this. Following a few changes in service leadership, a new manager had been appointed and became registered with the Care Quality Commission shortly after our visit. As they had only recently started the new registered manager was still getting to know people, relatives and staff; however, those we spoke with praised the unit staff and leadership.

Those we spoke with told us that generally there were enough staff to keep people safe. The service had introduced an additional shift, based on their learning from incidents. The service still relied on agency workers, although their use had reduced. Staff and relatives confirmed that where possible the same agency workers were used, which promoted consistency. We highlighted to the registered manager the need to check whether agency staff had also been trained to deliver safe care for people living with dementia.

Regular meetings took place to keep people, relatives and staff up-to-date and involved in the service. We received positive feedback from those we spoke with about the service keeping them informed about their family members, as well as the service creating a homely, welcoming feel. Staff felt there was a positive team atmosphere.

People we spoke with felt safe living at Clayton Manor and in observations we saw people appeared relaxed around staff. One person said, "I am well looked after here, although I do not really need much looking after." Relatives we spoke with praised the way in which staff kept their family members safe, particularly at times of distress. A relative told us, "I cannot sing their praises loudly enough, somehow they always find a way to get through."

At our last inspection we found that 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. As this was a focussed inspection checking whether the service was safe and well-led, we did not revisit this particular aspect of care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk