Cranmer Court

Cranmer Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At the time of our inspection there were nine people living in the service. 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.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last inspection published on 12 March 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in all domains. As the service remains good, we have written a shorter version of the report.

People's care and support was planned in partnership with them. Staff used individual ways of involving people and people took a key role in the local community and had opportunity to access education and work. People had facilities and support available to them to help them live as fulfilling a life as possible. People had opportunities to take part in activities that reflected their interests and preferences.

People told us how much they enjoyed living at Cranmer Court, spending time with their friends and being given opportunities to live their life.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff to meet their needs and keep them safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had.

Risks to people's safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again.

People lived in a service which was kept clean and tidy. People were encouraged to help with cleaning the service and their own private areas of the accommodation.

Medicines were managed and administered in a way to keep people safe. We found one mistake with administration and made a recommendation about this.

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the service to ensure staff could provide the support they required. Staff had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. All staff attended an induction when they started work and had access to ongoing training.

People's rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people's consent to their care and how people communicated their decisions.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People could make choices about the food they ate and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it. Each person had a health action plan which detailed their health needs and the support they needed. Staff worked with external organisations and professionals to help provide the most effective care to people.

The service provided bright and spacious accommodation with access to grounds and outside space. People had been encouraged to choose the décor and were able to personalise their bedrooms.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them and there was a homely, caring atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. People were supported to make choices about their care and to maintain relationships with their friends and families.

There were appropriate procedures for managing complaints. Where complaints had been received by the service these had been responded to appropriately.

People, relatives and staff benefited from good leadership provided by the registered manager. Relatives said management was open and transparent and it was clear from our discussions that they had a drive to continuously improve the service people received.

Staff said there was a strong team ethos and they received good support from their colleagues.

People who lived at the service, their relatives and other stakeholders had opportunities to give their views.

The provider's quality monitoring systems were effective in ensuring people received good quality care and support. Important areas of the service were audited regularly and action plans were developed when areas for improvement were identified. However, there was one area of the service we had a concern about which the audit tools had not identified. We made a recommendation regarding the medicines audit tool.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found