Claremont Nursing 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 the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans were not always personalised with people’s individual needs, and some hadn’t been fully updated following a review. However, staff made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. People told us they felt supported and safe. Comments included, “Staff offer me choices of food.” Staff knew people well and had a good knowledge and understanding of their needs.

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. People were supported to access health and social care services. Health and social care professionals told us they were involved in people care when they were required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s relatives told us they hadn’t always been informed of events or incidents. Staff told us they had a good understanding of people’s communication needs. One staff member said, “We understand that residents have different needs and that is why we always follow person centred care.” We observed staff allowing people to take time to understand information.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Relatives told us there had been a high turnover of management and therefore at times communication had broken down. Some relatives told us they were invited to contribute their views using surveys.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and relatives told us that staff supported people to access health care services. Staff understood that people had a right to receive the care and support that met their individual needs. The manager told us there was a structured on-call system in place where there was a range of managers to contact out of hours for to staff to gain advice or support.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People had equal opportunities to access care and support. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how these were met. Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure people’s rights were upheld.

People were not always 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. The provider’s systems for future planning were not always robust. People did not express any issues with how the provider supported them with their end-of-life care planning, however, care plans were sometimes not completed and did not always include information about their end-of-life preferences. This meant people were at risk of not having their end-of-life preferences met.