Claremont Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (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 demonstrated a shared vision, strategy, and culture grounded in transparency, equity and equality, human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an understanding of the challenges and needs of people and their communities.

The service promoted a positive and welcoming atmosphere. Staff spoke highly of the supportive, team‑focused culture and stated they felt valued and well supported by the new manager. One member of staff commented, “The manager is always present, checks practice and strives to improve standards.” Another staff member said, “The current manager is the only one I have worked with who promotes collaboration and learning.”

The home’s vision and values were clearly displayed in the entrance hall and were reinforced during staff supervision sessions. Supervision documentation included the service’s mission statement and values. An information booklet for people was in the process of being revised. Staff meetings were held on a quarterly basis, with records maintained both electronically and in hard copy.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager and senior leadership team were regarded as knowledgeable, professional, and responsive. The registered manager held a range of management roles within the organisation and was supported by a Clinical Lead and a Lead Nurse. Staff reported feeling well supported and consistently described the manager as approachable. Comments included, "The manager is responsive and escalates concerns to senior leadership when needed." And "The manager is approachable, visible on the floor, listens and acts on concerns."

We spoke with people and their relatives in relation to the registered manager to gain feedback. We were provided with generally positive feedback in relation to the manager’s style and approach. They told us, “The manager will phone me if anything happens. They will also tell me if there are any changes in the home. I can speak to the manager or staff about anything, to get an update” and “The new manager is in charge now; she is helpful and takes things seriously.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff confirmed they felt encouraged to raise concerns without fear of negative consequences. One member of staff commented, “Yes, staff are encouraged to speak up without fear.” Another said, “The manager encourages openness and reporting, including escalation to CQC, the local authority, or senior management where needed.”

The registered manager took action in response to feedback. In one example a relative raised concerns relating to odours and cleanliness in downstairs areas. These concerns were addressed and improvements were made to ensure cleanliness standers were maintained.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff had access to equality and diversity training, which supported their understanding of protected characteristics, bullying, and harassment, in line with current best‑practice guidance and the providers policy.

Care records clearly reflected individual cultural needs, including preferences relating to diet and religious observance, demonstrating that care was delivered in a person‑centred and culturally sensitive manner.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Systems were in place to support ongoing monitoring of quality and safety. Daily walkarounds and regular out‑of‑hours visits were undertaken to provide additional oversight. Where areas for improvement were identified during the inspection, actions for most of these had either already commenced or were clearly communicated to the registered manager to support further strengthening of governance processes. These did not have an impact on people.

Audits were completed at regular intervals and resulted in action plans, providing oversight and assurance of the quality and safety of the service. Senior leadership representatives visited the service and worked collaboratively with the registered manager.

The transition to the current registered manager had been well planned and effectively managed. Staff feedback reflected improved stability and confidence in leadership. One member of staff commented, “There has been a significant positive turnaround since the manager started, reflecting improved management stability.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

There were clear systems in place to support partnership working, including the timely sharing of information and learning with relevant stakeholders to support continuous improvement and positive outcomes for people.

The provider maintained effective and constructive working relationships with a range of health and social care partners, including GPs, mental health services, district nurses, specialist healthcare professionals, and local authority colleagues. Regular liaison and collaborative decision‑making supported appropriate oversight and ensured that care and support were planned and delivered in a coordinated and person‑centred way. Admissions were managed in line with agreed processes with local authorities ensuring people’s needs could be met safely and effectively.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to wider partnership and community engagement. People were supported to maintain links with the local community through organised visits, engagement with local schools, involvement with the local church, and participation in community outings.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Audits and quality checks were routinely completed and reviewed to identify areas of shortfall and to support shared learning across the staff team. Audit findings were used to inform improvements in practice and governance. The training programme was in place and subject to monthly monitoring through the audit schedule. However, some gaps remained, as a small number of staff had not yet completed or refreshed elements of their mandatory e‑learning. This was discussed with the registered manager.

Face‑to‑face training was provided in key clinical and care areas, including Moving and Handling, Catheter Care, Syringe Driver use, and End‑of‑Life Care. All other mandatory and role‑specific training was delivered via online learning platforms. Staff were encouraged to request additional training opportunities, which were reviewed and considered on an ongoing basis by the management team.

At the time of inspection, there were no designated specialist champions within the home. The registered manager advised that plans were being explored to introduce a champions programme to further develop staff expertise, strengthen leadership at all levels, and embed learning into practice. This initiative had not yet been implemented but reflected an ongoing commitment to continuous improvement.