Claremont Parkway

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives told us they were actively involved in assessments, planning and reviews of their care to ensure they received person-centred support. People’s preferences and decisions made were recorded in their care plans. A person said, “We discuss my care plan and if I ask for things to be added like having music they add it to the plan.” A relative told us, “I am aware of [Person’s] care plan, they do ring and update me, they are good like that.” Staff understood people’s individual needs and how these should be met. There were processes in place to keep staff up to date when people’s needs changed through handover meetings and reading the communication book.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s nutritional and dietary needs were met. A person said, “Food is lovely, there always a choice. A relative said, “The meals are pretty good, there is a choice. [Person] is happy with the food.” Staff had information about people’s dietary needs and the support required. We observed the lunch time experiences was positive. There was a choice of meals and drinks and we saw staff supported people to eat where needed. Nationally recognised tools were used to assess people’s needs and care plans included best practice guidance. For example, the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (MUST) was used to assess a person’s individual risk of malnutrition. We identified the clinical deterioration escalation procedure followed by staff did not refer to the ‘National Early Warning Score’ (NEWS) tool, used to help identify and respond to people who are deteriorating clinically. The provider took immediate action to address this and also scheduled training events for all clinical staff to complete across all services for this provider. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to providing evidence based care.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People were supported by staff that worked well together and with health care professionals and services. This ensured there was a joined up, consistent and effective approach to meeting people’s individual care needs.A relative told us, “The GP visits every Thursday, they manage [Person’s health] ok.” Staff knew how to access people’s care plans and provided the appropriate care and support they needed. Staff told us communication between the staff team was good, for instance daily handovers included new information and instructions to meet people’s needs. A visiting health professional told us staff have good knowledge about the needs of people in the care home.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People were supported by staff to stay healthy and well in line with their needs and wishes and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they were supported to access to health care services and treatment when required. A relative toldus their family member was under the care of the Parkinson’s nurse and was waiting for an optician’s appointment. People’s care plans contained scheduled appointments and any specific support people needed to attend these. Staff worked with external professionals to ensure people received coordinated care and support. Staff were knowledgeable of people’s care needs and how to promote good health. Staff respected people’s choices and wellbeing. A staff member said, “It’s important to support people to eat a balanced diet and encourage them to take part in activities to improve their physical and mental wellbeing.”

The provider has systems to monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Monitoring people’s health and wellbeing did not always ensure positive and consistent outcomes for both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves were met.

People told us their health and wellbeing was monitored. Staff were confident when new risks were identified, referrals had been made to health care professionals for advice and assessments. However, the oversight of people’s monitoring care records needed to be strengthened. For example, the food logs, fluid balance records and repositioning records were not always completed fully and consistently by staff. Although there was no impact on people’s health, potential risks or decline in health could be missed. These issues were raised with the provider and action was taken immediately. This included a staff meeting to remind staff about the importance of good record keeping. The provider assured us the increased monitoring and scrutiny would provide further assurances as the service moves to the electronic care planning system. Where a person received nutrition via a feeding tube inserted into their stomach, records showed the care plan with instructions from the dietitian was followed by staff. Reviews and monitoring records showed this person’s health, weight and wellbeing had improved.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us staff sought their consent and respected their wishes. A person said, “They always ask for my consent before doing anything.” A relative said, “[Person] can be negative to requests but they always ask [Person] for consent.” Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act, however, some staff did not fully understand what their responsibility was and would benefit from refresher training in this area. Staff were aware of the importance of giving people time to make their own decisions where possible and our observations confirmed this. A staff member said, “Before doing any task, I always explain them what I am going to do. If they refuse, I will try to encourage them but never do anything forcefully.” The manager understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They ensured the person and their representative with the appropriate legal authority, was involved in making best interest decisions. Monitoring systems in place enabled applications to renew DoLS authorisations in a timely manner. We found there was a delay in renewing a DoLS and immediate action was taken by the provider.