- Care home
Claremont Nursing Home
Assessment report published 3 July 2025
Contents
On this page
- Overview
- Assessing needs
- Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
- How staff, teams and services work together
- Supporting people to live healthier lives
- Monitoring and improving outcomes
- Consent to care and treatment
Effective
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Assessing needs
The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were happy with the care that was provided. There was systems and processes in place to assess people’s needs before they moved into the home. Relatives told us they were involved in this process. Staff told us there were systems in place to monitor people’s needs. A staff member commented “We always have very informative handovers, so each team knows all the relevant information which is important for all residents that their needs are met.”
Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff received training and support to help ensure they understood how to provide care which reflected best practice and guidance. One staff member said “We have fluid monitoring charts in place for some residents that we monitor every day. If fluids are low, I will inform care staff to encourage more fluids and I will also go to the resident and give reassurance and explain the benefits of having fluids.”
How staff, teams and services work together
The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The staff worked well together and communicated effectively with external professionals. People were supported with visits from external professionals arranged by staff at the service. One health care professional said, “I feel they would contact us if they had concerns.”
Supporting people to live healthier lives
The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People and relatives told us, that staff supported people to access health care professional services to ensure people’s needs were met. People’s relatives told us they were well informed about changes in their condition or health.
Monitoring and improving outcomes
The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. We found that care plans were not always updated with correct information, however, people had allocated keyworkers who understood their care needs. One person said, “I have a keyworker, and they are lovely.” Relatives told us they were involved with this process.
Consent to care and treatment
The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Systems to ensure people had consented to their care were not always followed. We found that information in these records was not clear and detailed, and they did not always evidence people’s active involvement with them. Best interest meetings had not always been undertaken. The provider’s systems had failed to identify people’s gaps in assessments. Staff we spoke with were aware of the importance of speaking with people before providing care.