• Care Home
  • Care home

Claremont Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

6 Lower Northdown Avenue, Margate, Kent, CT9 2NJ (01843) 225117

Provided and run by:
Hope Care Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 17 December 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 30 November 2020 and was announced.

Overall inspection


Updated 17 December 2020

We inspected the service on 10 January 2019 and the inspection was unannounced.

Claremont Care Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Claremont Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 17 older people and people who live with dementia. There were 16 people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit.

The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. The company was owned by a single director who was also the 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. In this report when we speak about both the registered provider and the registered manager, we refer to them as being, the ‘registered persons’.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 6 April 2016 the overall rating of the service was, 'Good'. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found that the service remained, 'Good'.

People were safeguarded from situations in which they may be at risk of experiencing abuse. Risks to people's safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough care staff to provide people with the care they needed. Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. Suitable steps had been taken to prevent and control infection. Lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.

Care was delivered in a way that promoted positive outcomes for people. Care staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to provide support in line with legislation and guidance. This included providing reassurance to people who lived with dementia if they became distressed. People were supported to eat and drink enough to have a balanced diet. Suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated care when they used or moved between different services. The accommodation was designed, adapted and decorated to meet people’s needs.

People had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People only received lawful care that was the least restrictive possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. They were also supported to express their views about things that were important to them. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

People received personalised care that promoted their independence. Information had been presented to them in an accessible way so that they could make and review decisions about the care they received. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. The registered manager and care staff promoted equality and diversity. There were arrangements to ensure that people's complaints were resolved so that problems could be put right to improve the quality of care. Suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

The registered manager had promoted an open and inclusive culture in the service to ensure that regulatory requirements were met. People who lived in the service, their relatives and care staff were actively engaged in developing the service. There were systems and procedures to enable the service to learn, improve and assure its sustainability. The registered manager was actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.