Clarendon House Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this service since registration. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them in a way they wished. They said staff knew them well and understood what mattered to them. We observed some bedrooms were highly personalised, and people spoke positively about the way staff supported their routines, comfort, and emotional wellbeing.

Relatives told us they felt involved in care planning, particularly since the arrival of the current registered manager, and several people commented that staff had “gone above and beyond” to offer thoughtful care such as hand massages, reassurance, and attention to appearance.

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. However, feedback about continuity of staff was mixed, with some people and relatives describing good consistency and familiarity, and others reporting frequent change or rotation between floors that affected continuity. The registered manager told us they rotated staff to different floors to ensure all staff were aware of people’s needs.

People were familiar with the nursing staff, and many people had provided positive feedback on a few named nurses. Comments included, “[staff] have got to know [their family member] well” and “[staff] listens and learns and has got to know [person] the best.”

People and relatives told us they felt staff at weekends were less known to them. We have provided this feedback to the registered manager to consider.

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

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people’s communication needs were known and understood. The service offered eye tests and hearing checks on site. People’s glasses were engraved with their name and details. The building had a hearing loop system, operational in all communal areas. A variety of aids to support communication were available to meet individual needs.

The registered manger told us, “We reassure all residents that information can be provided in alternative formats, such as large print, easy-read, or audio, and we can arrange interpreters when required.” However, people told us they would like to see a menu on their tables in the dining room to look at before lunch. We observed there was one at the entrance to the room. However, people who required support with their mobility were not routinely shown the menu when they were taken into the dining room by staff.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their families said they felt listened to, and many described examples of staff involving them in decisions about care, routines, and changes in equipment.

One relative told us that their sibling was unable to visit the service frequently owing to where they lived. However, they would ring the service for frequent updates and felt very included in the planning of care for their family member.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service had a complaints procedure, and people and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. Comments included, “Yes, I know the manager and we know that we can see her if we need to.”

People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to share their views on the service. Resident and relative meetings were organised, and surveys were also sent out. The registered manager told us a recent survey had resulted in some feedback which they were keen to address. We found the registered manager was responsive to the feedback.

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.

Where people had shared their views on end of life wishes, these were recorded to ensure staff were fully aware of those views.

A relative told us their family member lived with advanced dementia and died at the service after 3 months. They told us how the service initiated difficult conversations with the family, which were handled so well and they were included in the planning of the person’s end of life care. They told us the service afforded [Person] “dignity in death”.

The registered manager was able to share how the service had supported a memorial service at the care home for a previous resident. The registered manager told us, “Hosting the memorial within the home helped reinforce the sense that Clarendon House is not simply a place where people receive care, but a community where relationships are built and lives are respected, remembered and celebrated.”