The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Paul Clarke Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Chatterley House, Chatterley Road, Tunstall S-O-T, Staffordshire, ST6 4PX (01782) 834354

Provided and run by:
Mrs A Clarke

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

09 February 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Paul Clarke Home on 09 February 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

Paul Clarke Home provides accommodation and care for up to 11 people who may have a learning disability.

There was a manager registered to manage the home. 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 time of the inspection the registered manager was suspended from duty pending the outcome of a local authority investigation into some aspects of the care provided to people who use the service.

Staff understanding of the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were limited. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate, decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves.

Staff had not received regular opportunities to discuss their practice or had received a formal one to one appraisal of how they were performing. These important quality checks of staff practice ensure a provider is actively reviewing the quality of care provided to ensure it meets expected standards.

People who used the service had some opportunities to access the community and to be involved in recreational activities but this was limited.

The provider had not ensured that checks of the quality of the service had been completed regularly, or that people who used the service and their supporter’s views were sought on the running of the home.

Staff understood how to recognise and report suspected abuse and knew how to ‘blow the whistle’ if they were aware of poor practice.

Staff were properly recruited and were able to meet people’s needs. They confirmed they received essential training and updates. Medicines were managed, stored and administered appropriately.

Care was planned and people received the health support they needed. People who used the service, could choose what they had to eat and had access to assist with meal preparation if they needed to. Weekly meetings were planned with people to plan the following weeks, activities, and domestic tasks, with each person involved in some sort of domestic role.

There was evidence of positive relations between staff and people who used the service, the atmosphere was welcoming and friendly and staff knew how to meet people’s needs.

We found there were breaches of the regulations we inspection against. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

27 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection of Paul Clarke Home we noted that there had been incidents affecting people who used the service that had not been reported to us as is required by regulation. We undertook this inspection of the service to check that people were not placed at risk of harm because incidents were not properly reported and acted upon.

The manager confirmed that she understood the requirement for reporting serious incidents or accidents, and described an incident that had occurred that had been reported appropriately. The provider had an effective system in place to report any serious incidents that had occurred to people who used the service.

26 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection of Paul Clarke Home we raised concerns about the quality of records. We found the provider did not comply with the regulation regarding the relevance and accuracy of records maintained in the home. We found that some care records did not reflect the needs of people that used the service, or plans to inform staff and people about how care needs should be met had not been completed. This meant people may be at risk.

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to tell us how they intended to improve in this important area. Following a reminder to do so, the provider told us that improvements had been made to ensure that records were up to date and reflected people's needs.

During this inspection we found that care plans were in place to address people's needs, and assessments of potential risks to people had been completed.

People we spoke with told us, "I'm okay" and "I've been sitting in the garden". We observed people in the home and they told us they were happy with the support they received.

Following this inspection we spoke with a social care professional who stated that they had no concerns about the support the service offered the person they supported.

During this inspection we noted that the provider had not informed us of incidents in the home that must be reported to us. The provider must inform us of incidents in the home to ensure that we had an up to date picture of people's experiences.

26 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected Paul Clarke Home as part of our planned schedule of inspections. The inspection was unannounced, this meant that the registered manager, staff and people that used the service did not know we were going to visit.

During our inspection there were 11 people living at the home. We spoke with six people who used the service, the registered manager and two staff. People we spoke with told us that they liked living at Paul Clarke Home. One person said: "It's okay we can go on holiday if we want to". Following the inspection we spoke to a social care professional.

We saw that improvements were needed in relation to people's care records to be certain staff had the information needed to ensure people's care and support needs could be met. Some of the records we looked at didn't have sufficient detail to provide staff with the information they needed to support people appropriately.

We looked at records and the management of medication to determine if the essential standards of quality and safety were being met. We found medication was administered as prescribed.

We saw that staff were properly supported and supervised enabling them to deliver appropriate care.

We saw that the provider had procedures in place for managing and investigating complaints. People we spoke with told us if they had any complaints they could talk to the staff or the manager about them.

31 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook this inspection visit to check that the home had made improvements to the service it provided since we last visited on 24 October 2012, and as part of our schedule of planned inspections.

At our last visit we found that there were no effective systems to regularly

assess and monitor the quality of the service and that staff were not receiving appropriate training and supervision to deliver care. Following our visit the provider sent us an action plan outlining how they intended to make improvements and to comply with the standards they were expected to meet.

During this visit we looked at both areas of non-compliance and four other outcomes to check that people using the service were receiving good quality care and support. We found that the provider had acted to address the previous areas of concerns, established a programme of staff training and supervision and was monitoring and assessing the service. This was confirmed by staff and from the records we saw.

An expert by experience took part in this inspection and talked to people using the service and staff. An expert by experience is someone who uses services or has had experience of services. They are people of all ages, with different experiences and from diverse cultural backgrounds. Our expert by experience was accompanied by a mentor who took some notes and wrote a report about what they found, we have included their observations in the main body of this report.

We visited the home and spoke to people using the service and staff. We looked at records of care, training, staff recruitment records and observed interactions. We saw that people using the service had access to all areas of the home and were able to exercise their independence by accessing the kitchen to make their own drinks and supporting staff with food preparation.

People told us they were happy living at the home, they showed that they were able to choose what they wanted to do and the meals they had.

People told us, "I am happy here" "We are fine here, we can do the things we want to do".

24 October 2011

During a routine inspection

We observed how staff and users of the service interacted and talked to people about the things they did and what they liked about the service. We saw that weekly meetings took place, so that people could plan the things they wanted to do and to eat for the following week. We spoke to people using the service about the things they did; we were told that they enjoyed going to the pub, local craft centres and shopping. We looked at records of activity for one person and noted that they had limited opportunities for occupation.

We saw that people had care records in place and they confirmed that staff spoke to them about them. In one example, we saw that the person had confirmed consent to medication and that they had been involved in their needs assessment.

People told us they were happy living at the home, they showed that they were able to choose what they wanted to do and the meals they ate.

We talked to staff about the training and support they received and saw that some training was not current. Staff were not having regular opportunities to meet to discuss how best to provide support to people.

Before our visit we contacted other people who may have had an interest in the service such as fire safety officers, environmental health, and local involvement networks (LINks). LINks are groups of individual members of the public and local voluntary and community groups who work together to improve health and social care services. To do this they gather the views of local people. No concerns were identified by any of these agencies.

We talked to the manager about how she ensured that she monitored the quality of the service provided and that it was constantly developing and improving. There was little evidence that this was happening.