You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 19 June 2017.

Claremont Lodge Care Home is registered to provide nursing and residential care for up to 35 older people. The home is purpose built, with all rooms having ensuite facilities. There are extensive landscaped gardens surrounding the home and ground floor rooms have patio doors that open on to garden area. At the time of our inspection 27 people were living at the home. People’s needs varied. Some people were quite independent and only needed minimal assistance whilst others required assistance with all aspects of their care.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection in May 2015 we found that as and when required (PRN) medicines were not always managed safely and this resulted in a breach of regulation. In response, the registered manager sent us an action plan that detailed the steps that would be taken to address this. At this inspection we found that medicines were managed safely and the previous breach of regulation was met. Staff followed safe medicine administration procedures and people said they were happy with the support they received to manage their medicines.

People told us that staff were kind, caring and respectful and we observed this to be the case during our inspection. People said that they were treated with respect and dignity and that their rights were promoted. We observed interactions by staff that were genuine and warm however, some people and staff commented about staffing levels. People said that this did not affect their safety but that they affected the quality of care provided. This is an area for development that the provider has started to act upon.

Staff were suitably trained and skilled and received training relevant to the needs of people who lived at the home. Staff were supported and received group and one to one supervision. Staff had received safeguarding training and reporting procedures were in place if abuse was suspected.

People said that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received. People’s health needs were managed effectively. Potential risks to people were assessed and information was available for staff which helped keep people safe. Equipment was available in sufficient quantities and used where needed to ensure that people were moved safely and staff practiced safe moving and handling techniques.

Quality monitoring systems were in place to ensure action was taken when areas for improvement were identified. Robust recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to support people. Everyone that we spoke with said that the registered manager was a good role model. Staff, people who lived at the home and their relatives said that the registered manager actively sought their views, listened and acted upon them. Views were sought via questionnaires and during group meetings.

People received responsive care based on their individual needs. A new care planning system was being introduced at the home that would provide more detailed care plans for staff to refer to. It would also give people greater opportunities to be involved in any reviews of their care.

People said that they consented to the care they received and that their freedom of movement was not restricted. Mental capacity assessments were completed for people and their capacity to make decisions had been assumed by staff unless there was a professional assessment to show otherwise.

People said that the food at the home was good and that their dietary needs were met. There were a variety of choices available to people at all mealtimes.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was safe.

People's views on staffing varied. There were enough staff on duty to provide safe care. The provider had started to take action in an effort to recruit more permanent staff in order to reduce the reliance on agency use.

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place that offered protection to people.

Medicines were managed safely.

Risks were assessed and managed safely with risk assessments providing information and guidance to staff.

Staff underwent robust recruitment checks to make sure that they were safe to care for people.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life.

People consented to the care they received. The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat a choice of meals that promoted good health.

People told us that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received. People’s health and care needs were managed effectively.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff. Caring relationships had been developed that promoted people’s sense of wellbeing.

Opportunities were available for people to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care and support. Involving people in the reviewing of their care plans would expand people’s opportunities further.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were able to explain how they promoted people’s dignity and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and action was taken in response to their individual needs and preferences. People were supported to express their views but were not always involved in making decisions about their care and support. A new care planning system was being introduced that would address this.

An activity programme was in place and people expressed satisfaction with the range of activities available.

People felt able to raise concerns and were aware of the complaints procedure. Systems were in place that supported people to raise concerns and their views and opinions were acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager promoted a positive culture which was open and inclusive.

Systems were being used to identify and take action to reduce risks to people and to monitor the quality of service they received.

People spoke highly of the registered manager and said that the home was well-led. Staff felt well supported and were clear about their roles and responsibilities.