Claremont Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 59 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. One staff member said, “We have a lesson learnt folder that we need to read and sign on a regular basis we also have staff meetings where we can reflect and learn from these.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service worked with healthcare professionals to achieve good outcomes for the people living in the service. Feedback from professionals was positive. One professional said, “I’ve not had any negative experiences with them, there’s always been someone to talk to pretty quickly who knows the patient and their situation.”

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately. Systems were in place to review care plans and risk assessments, these were reviewed regularly however, we found that information within these documents was not correct, therefore people were put at an increased risk of harm. Systems were in place to record and report safeguarding concerns, however records showed that some essential details were missing. Staff had a good understanding of how to report safeguarding concerns and had received safeguarding people from abuse training. People and relatives told us they felt safe. One relative said, “I really have no concerns about safety.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We found care plans did not always explain ways to support people if they were agitated or distressed, therefore if staff are unaware of how to support people this could place people at risk of harm. Feedback from relatives was mixed. Some relatives were involved with reviewing care plans. One relative said, “We were involved with the original care plan and a review is arranged for this week”.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We found the environment was lacking personalisation in some areas of the home. We found the residential unit to have more signage and personalised rooms. There was no lock on a bathroom door therefore putting people at risk and compromising their dignity. One person said, “I like my room, there is nothing I would change, I like it here.”

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Employment checks were completed appropriately. Staff were provided with an induction and training. One staff member said, “The training was very helpful and educative with lots of learning materials, I also received clinical training in the care home.”

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. Improvements were needed to ensure good cleanliness at all times. During the site visit, we observed shower chairs to have rust on them and mould in one of the shower rooms. Staff were supplied with personal protective equipment and were knowledgeable of the infection, prevention and control measures. Staff received training in relation to this, 1 relative said, “Staff wear gloves and aprons when supporting [person] with personal care.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Improvements were needed to ensure these were robust. Medicines were not always being given because they had not been obtained in time due to the ineffective governance systems in place. There were gaps in some records due to this and not enough information was available to staff to be able to manage people’s medicines safely such as for the safe application of medicated skin patches. We observed that staff who were regularly assessed as competent gave people their medicines by following safe procedures.