St Claire's 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s personal care needs had not always been met. They had care plans in place to show their preferences on bathing and showering. We reviewed records for the previous 30 days, this showed only 6 of 29 people had been supported to have a shower. No baths had been recorded in this time. We observed that some people had long and dirty fingernails. Oral hygiene records were poor and did not show that people had been supported to clean their teeth or have mouthcare twice a day to maintain the health of their teeth and gums. Records did not show that staff had offered people support with baths, showers and oral healthcare and people had declined this. There was no oversight of people’s hygiene needs.

Some care plans were detailed and clear about people’s needs. However, this was inconsistent. Some care plans lacked guidance for staff. Care plans for people at risk of constipation lacked detail about bowel movements in relation to what was normal for each person. For example, whether the person opened their bowels daily, every other day and what staff should do if they had not opened their bowel, such as utilising foods and natural remedies to act as a laxative or when to escalate for PRN medicines or referral to the GP. A person’s care plan in relation to agitation and distress showed that they should keep away from known triggers, but these triggers were not listed. The provider told us that the person had made racist comments since they had been at the service, but this information had not been included in their care plan or shared with the agency who was providing staff to support the person 24/7 on a 1:1 basis. This meant staff who were likely to trigger the person’s anxiety and distress were assigned to work with them.

People who lived with Parkinson’s disease or epilepsy did not have care plans in place detailing how these diagnosed illnesses affected them and how staff could support them safely.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Information was shared with staff during handover regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care.

Staff told us how they supported people and their relatives. However, a relative did not feel entirely supported as they were having to purchase continence products for their loved one because continence assessments had not taken place. This not only was an inconvenience to have to purchase them each week but also a financial burden too. This had not been escalated or resolved in a timely manner by the service to the GP practice.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a lack of dementia-friendly signage and way marking around the service to direct and orientate people. There was no dementia friendly signage on doors such as toilets, bathrooms and shower rooms. Some people had been actively walking around the service.

The provider told us in their information return which was submitted in June 2026, ‘We use a range of communication methods to meet individual needs, including large-print documents, picture prompts, visual aids, communication boards, simplified language, hearing support, and assistance from relatives or advocates where appropriate and with consent. Staff are encouraged to adapt their communication style to suit each person's needs and abilities.’ We observed staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs for example, people who may have hearing or visual impairments. Staff shared how they provided information and communicated with people. They also picked up on people’s nonverbal communication such as facial expressions, eye movement or use of hands (thumbs up or down).

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider told us surveys will be sent to people and relatives regularly. The results of the 2024 survey were displayed by the front door in an area which was not accessible to people living at the service. During the assessment, we observed a person completing a survey with staff support. People had not been involved in ‘residents’ meetings. These had not taken place. Comments included, “No I don’t go to any meetings” and “There are no resident meetings that I know of.”

Relatives had not always been listened to. Relatives had been surveyed in 2025, whilst the results were mainly positive, the survey results showed a relative had raised that the service could have more external activities, music or therapy dogs. The provider had responded to this, ‘We do have music twice a month and we do have visitors that can bring their dogs in.’

People told us if they had a complaint, they would approach the deputy manager to discuss this. A person felt they had not been listened to as they and their family had purchased a fridge for their room to keep their drinks and snacks in. The provider had removed this from the room. The person was not aware why this had happened.

Complaints processes were available. Complaints records showed that complaints had been responded to and actions had been taken. A relative told us, “I would be happy to express any concerns. The owners of the home are very charming and approachable.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had a clear policy on accessing the service. The provider had carried out assessments on new admissions to the service. The provider’s statement of purpose detailed that the service accepted people for long term stays, short term stays or for holiday stays.

Staff and leaders did not always listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People had access to a small garden which they could use if staff supported them to and some had access to the community (generally supported by their relatives). A person’s relative had paid for a staff member from another organisation to come to the service, engage with their loved one and provide support with activities (including going out into the community). People cared for in bed had nothing to keep them stimulated and occupied to support their mental health and physical health.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Some people had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) form in place. This is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR. It is not about other treatments or care. Some people had ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care Treatment) forms in place. A ReSPECT form records a person's wishes about a range of care and treatments.

End of life care plans were as comprehensive as the person wanted it to be and plans were clear in cases where people had chosen not to discuss this element of their care. The service provided some care to people at the end of their lives. Staff told us that they worked with community nurses and the hospice to ensure people had effective support and pain relief to ensure people had dignified, pain free deaths. Medicines were available to keep them as comfortable as possible. Training records showed that most staff had attended training to support people at the end of their life. The service had received cards from relatives thanking the staff for providing good care and support to their loved ones at the end of their lives.