Claremont Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

During our assessment of this key question, we found care plans were person centred however, there was limited evidence to show how people and their relatives were involved in this planning. We found people provided mixed feedback about their care however, this was mainly in relation to having access to baths. People told us they had access to health professionals and visiting healthcare professionals shared positive feedback about their work with staff and the management team to meet the needs of people. People had information they needed to understand what care provision they required, and effective communication care plans were in place. There was a complaints process in place, and this was being followed. Staff told us they would escalate to the management team any concerns they identified or were reported. Staff and the management team knew how to support people well at the end of their lives.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People shared mixed feedback about their care. Some people raised issues about accessing a bath. Their comments included, "I haven’t had a bath for ages"; "I could have a shower when I want one" and "I like a bath.” Care records we sampled showed not many people had baths; showers were offered regularly and staff asked people again if they declined; bed baths were offered and provided daily. People and relatives said they were able to raise and share any feedback and some relatives said actions had been taken as a result of doing this. A relative told us, "Yesterday [person] had somebody else’s jumper on, when I told them [staff] they changed it immediately, the staff took an interest when I explained how [relative] liked to be dressed."

Staff told us they knew people well and were able to tell us people's needs and preferences. We found staff who administered people’s medicines did have a good understanding of when and why some people needed them at specific times to help in managing people’s health conditions.

In our observations, we found staff were attentive to people's needs and responded appropriately.

People told their care was good and that they could access healthcare professionals when they needed them. Their comments included, "They get the doctor for you” and "I have been unwell with a bad chest and a pain in my leg, they got the doctor for me.”

In our conversations with the management team, they told us concerns had been raised from healthcare professionals. The home manager told us they wanted to rebuild relationships with GP practices covering the home. We observed a sign had been put in place at the front door to ensure visiting healthcare professionals were attended to in a timely way when they visited the home.

Visiting healthcare professionals shared positive feedback about their work with staff and the management team to meet the needs of people. A visiting professional told us, "It is quite OK, staff are always responsive, responsive to clients concerns, staff or [name of regional manager] always give me an answer."

There was a regular staff team who supported people in a consistent way. Agency staff were deployed at times, but this was mainly to provide regular support to people who required one to one support during the day. Staff and the management team worked with a wider group of healthcare professionals to meet people's needs. This included dietician, palliative care team and GPs. Processes to check people’s clinical care needs and risks were well managed through regular team meetings and handovers.

People and relatives had the information they needed to understand what care provision they required.

Staff knew about people's communication needs, for example those who did not speak English as their first language and told us people were mainly supported by staff who were able to speak in people's native language.

Care plans contained personalised communication records for people’s individual needs. Some people living at the home did not speak English as their first language and this was recorded in their care plans.

People and relatives shared mixed feedback about how they would make a complaint. A person told us, "I don’t know who I’d complain to”, and another person commented, "I don’t know who I’d tell, I don’t think I’ve got any complaints. I’d recommend this care home.” Several people told us they did not know who the manager was. A relative said, "I’d complain to the manager or senior, whoever is about.”

Staff told us they would escalate to the management team any concerns they identified or were reported. The management team explained us any concerns and complaints raised would be investigated.

There was a complaints process in place, and this was being followed.

People were supported by external health professionals when needed. During our visits, we spoke with visiting healthcare professionals who visited the home to support people with their care.

Staff told us they would raise any concerns about people's care to nurses or managers. Staff told us daily handovers included updates on people and how people were feeling. Their comments included, "Handover’s give us information [about people's changing needs]" and "We have a daily huddles or flash meetings, handovers and get told in these and the care plans are then updated too."

Feedback received from healthcare professionals confirmed the service ensured people had access to the care they required in a timely way.

There were systems in place to ensure people accessed care and support when they needed it. This included contact with the GP surgery and referrals being completed when other healthcare professionals needed to be involved in people's care, for example a dietician if people were losing weight.

Most people expressed a positive experience of the care they received but we also received some feedback indicating people felt a lack of stimulation, although evidence we reviewed confirmed activities were happening regularly at the service. People's comments included, "Not much going on; I get bored"; "There’s nothing to do" and "Nothing to do here really. We are alright.” A relative told us, “On Wednesday morning they had a coffee morning with cakes on a cake stand.”

Staff told us they adapted their approach to meet individual people's needs.

The care plans in place included details about people's preferences and particular needs. This showed people's individual rights and choices were considered and planned for. This supported an equal experience of care and good outcomes for people.

People and relatives did not share feedback about end of live planning, but we found care plans were in place linked to this area of people's care and relevant professionals had been involved.

Staff and the management team knew how to support people well at the end of their lives.

People's end of life care wishes and preferences were planned for. Relevant healthcare professionals had been involved when people required specialized care, for example, with managing their pain levels. We found medicines to support people at this time of their lives was well managed.