Clifton Manor Residential 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 that 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 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person-centred and detailed people’s backgrounds, life histories and social, physical and mental health needs. They included clear guidance for staff on how to support people’s wellbeing, including personal care, oral health and maintaining physical health.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people as individuals, including their interests, life history and what brought them comfort and meaning. This enabled staff to create personalised opportunities that recognised people’s strengths and supported confidence, purpose and choice. In one example, staff recognised how meaningful a particular object of interest was for a person. They were supported to take part in activities that reflected their interests. Records show this had a positive impact on the person’s wellbeing and sense of purpose.

Staff also thought creatively about emotional connection and comfort. One person told us they had previously enjoyed taking part in a particular activity and were looking forward to attending an event related to this interest with the activities coordinator. They told us they were looking forward to the experience and the memories it would bring back.

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.

Relevant documentation, including care plans and risk assessments, were updated to reflect changes in each person’s needs as they occurred. Any changes were communicated effectively to staff. The registered manager and staff worked well with local services to ensure care met people’s diverse health needs. People’s health needs were also well known to kitchen staff where this impacted dietary requirements, and relevant supporting documentation was available in kitchen areas. Staff used clear systems to share information, including structured handovers. Professionals we spoke with told us the service worked well with them to ensure care was flexible and supported a multi-disciplinary approach.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and care plans contained guidance for staff on how best to communicate with them. The provider made relevant information available to people and those important to them, where appropriate. Information was displayed to support day-to-day choices, including activities information and menus in the dining area. The registered manager also provided a newsletter using clear language, visual cues and familiar formats to support understanding and encourage engagement. We observed staff communicating with people patiently and supporting their understanding.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they did not always fully explore the views people shared to understand the reasons behind them.

The provider analysed feedback from surveys and shared information about the actions taken in response. For example, when a resident survey identified that doors were too noisy at night, the registered manager arranged for them to be reviewed and adjusted where necessary. They also discussed noise reduction with staff through supervision. However, some survey responses indicated people and their relatives felt there were not always enough staff on duty. The registered manager referred to the dependency tool, which showed staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs, bud did not further explore the concerns raised. During our assessment, we received similar feedback. In response, the provider increased staffing levels to enhance people’s experience of care.

Leaders and staff listened to people and involved them, and those important to them, in day-to-day decisions and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to external health professionals on a routine and unplanned basis in response to their individual needs. This included primary care and hospital outpatient appointments. One relative told us, “[My relative’s] access to medical services is excellent.”

People were able to access the support available within the home and staff made adjustments so no one was disadvantaged. Where people needed specialist equipment, the provider made appropriate referrals to obtain this. People were supported to understand choices available to them, including at mealtimes and in relation to activities. The provider was planning a seaside trip and ensured people with mobility needs could take part by identifying accessible facilities at the destination, including a bathroom with a hoist.

Overall, the premises were accessible. A lift was available to support people with mobility challenges to access upper floors and mobility aids were available in the bathrooms.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored care accordingly. The provider and staff had completed equality and diversity training to support inclusive practice.

During the assessment, people’s experiences of the service were consistent. There was no evidence to suggest that anyone was treated less favourably, or that outcomes differed as a result of personal characteristics, background or support needs.

Relatives told us they were confident their family member was well supported, and staff demonstrated an inclusive, person-centred approach in their day-to-day practice.

People were 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.

Staff had documented people’s preferences and wishes, and care plans contained information on how people wished to be supported in the future, including at end of life where appropriate. Staff had experience of supporting people with end of life care. Their practice was supported by the deputy manager, who was an end of life champion. There were opportunities for people to have discussions relating to planning for the future. Relatives told us that they were included in discussions where appropriate, during admission and through a person’s stay. Staff knew people well and were able to anticipate their needs.