You are here

Clarence House Residential Home

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings from previous provider


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The inspection took place on the 11 June 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection continued on the 12 June 2018 and was announced.

At our previous inspection in May 2017 we found breaches in regulation of safe care and treatment and good governance. People had not been protected from the risk of avoidable harm and medicines had not been administered safely. We also found that systems and processes to safeguard people were not being followed. Also systems and processes had not been effective in monitoring and reducing risks to people related to their health and welfare. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements and this action has been completed.

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show us what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, is the service safe and is the service well led, to at least good.

Clarence House 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. The home is registered to provide care for up to 29 people. At the time of our inspection 23 older people, some of whom were living with a dementia, were residing at the service.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Assessments had been completed that identified risks to people such as malnutrition, dehydration, skin damage and falls. Actions in place to manage risk to prevent avoidable harm were understood by the staff team and being followed. Risks were reviewed at least monthly and included input from people and their families. When risks were being managed people’s freedom and choices had been respected.

People had their medicines ordered, stored, administered and recorded appropriately. When people had medicines prescribed for ‘as and when required’, protocols were in place with detailed information to enable medicines to be administered appropriately. A new process for topical creams had been introduced which included a body map and clear instructions for care staff as to where creams needed to be applied and how often. Staff had completed records to demonstrate this had taken place in accordance with people’s prescriptions.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in identifying and reporting concerns. Accidents and incidents were reviewed by the registered manager who understood their role in reporting safeguarding concerns to external agencies when appropriate.

Auditing processes had been strengthened and included the registered manager evaluating risks to people weekly. Auditing tools had been reviewed and were effective in highlighting areas where improvements were needed. When actions were identified they took place in a timely way.

People were supported by staff who had undertaken a recruitment process that included checks on their suitability to work with vulnerable people. Staffing levels were regularly reviewed and met people’s care needs. Staff had inductions, on-going training and support that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.

Prior to admission, assessments had been completed with people to gather information about their care needs and choices. The information had been used to develop person centred care plans that reflected people’s individuality and included end of life wishes. Staff had a good knowledge of people and their communication needs and provided care with kindness, patience and empathy. People had their privacy, dignity and independence respected.

Peopl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was safe.

People had their risks understood and actions in place minimised the risk of avoidable harm.

Accidents and incidents were reported and reviewed appropriately and when things went wrong appropriate actions and reporting to external agencies had been taken.

Staff were recruited safely and staffing levels were regularly reviewed to meet the changing needs of people.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and recorded safely.

People had been protected from avoidable infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was effective.

People had their needs and choices assessed which included any specialist equipment requirements prior to admission.

Staff had an induction and ongoing training and support to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met.

People had access to healthcare for both planned and emergency care and working relationships with professionals enabled effective care across services.

The building and environment met the needs of people and promoted independence.

People had their choices and freedoms respected in the least restrictive way in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was caring.

People received kind, caring, compassionate care.

People were involved in decisions about their care and day to day lives�.

People had their privacy, dignity and independence respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People had their care planned around their needs and choices and care plans reflected a person�s individuality.

A complaints process was in place and people and their families felt listened to when they raised concerns.

People had an opportunity to plan for their end of life and had their wishes respected.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was well led.

Auditing systems and processes had been reviewed and were effective in identifying and driving improvements in service delivery.

Leadership was visible and promoted an open, positive culture where people and staff felt involved and engaged in service development.

Staff understood their responsibilities, worked as a team and felt appreciated in their roles.

Information was effectively shared with other agencies which enabled seamless care.