You are here

Archived: Claremont Lodge Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 October 2013
Date of Publication: 9 November 2013

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

During our inspection of Claremont Lodge Care Home, either speaking with people or observing interactions, it was evident that people were comfortable and relaxed in their surroundings and had freedom in their daily routines. This included pursuing their own interests where possible and keeping in touch with family and friends. One person told us, "I have a couple of friends in the supported housing bit next door and I go there quite a lot". We noted that the home had a library, a hairdressing salon and a minibus, used for trips to outside venues. The home also provided a wide variety of social activities within the home.We found evidence that people were able to influence what was provided at regular residents' meetings. Other people required more attention from staff. One such person said, "I need a lot of care but I must say that I've got a lot better since living here". A visitor we spoke with, who always arrived unannounced, told us,"The care seems very good from what I can see. My relative certainly doesn't have any complaints".

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. Some people who lived at the home had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us. To address this issue, we used a formal, research based method to observe people in order to help us understand how their needs were met. This is called the 'Short Observational Framework for Inspection' (SOFI). We undertook observation of care using the SOFI tool at lunchtime and found the care to be safe and appropriate, with adequate numbers of staff present. We noted that there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere during the time of observation. We saw excellent verbal interaction between people and staff who took care to ask permission before intervening with assistance. There was a high level of engagement between people and staff. Consequently people, where possible, felt empowered to express their needs and received appropriate care. We also observed those who were unable to express their needs. They received the right level of support. It was evident, through our observations, that staff had enough skills and experience to achieve this.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The care plans we examined were clear, concise and legible, with evidence of individual care planning and risk assessment having been undertaken. These included assessments in the areas of pain management and the risks associated with the use of bed rails. We found evidence in the care plans that the home worked closely with external agencies in meeting people's care needs. We noted that the home referred to and followed advice from a wide variety of professionals, including dieticians, audiologists and speech and language therapists. This meant that people’s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance.

The staff members we spoke with were working in a variety of roles and were all clear about their responsibilities in providing good quality care for people. It was evident that they possessed a high level of knowledge of the people they were caring for and understood what their particular contribution should be. One staff member told us, "We are busy but I'm confident we provide good care". Another said, "I like working here. I wouldn't have stayed if it wasn't right".

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We observed that the home had clear protocols to follow in case of emergencies, such as an outbreak of fire or exposure to harmful substances. All staff received regular fire training and in the care of substances harmful to health. The staff we spoke with were clear about their responsibilities in this area. We noted that the care plans contained a fire risk assessment for each person, relevant to their abilities to recognise and react to an emergenc