Claremont Parkway

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 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 remained at the heart of their care and were involved in decision making about their care needs. A person said, “They discuss my care with me; it’s ongoing really.” People told us staff provided support in accordance with their wishes and preferences. People’s care plans were of good quality, written in a person-centred way, and reflected how they wish to be cared for. These were regularly reviewed. We observed that all staff, not just care staff, always interacted positively with people, and spoke to people by name. Staff understood people’s needs and preference, for instance, promoting people's diverse and spiritual needs. Staff understood what person-centred care meant and we observed this in practice. A staff member said, “All the information I need about people can be found in their care plans and the risk assessments. Everything is explained very well. If anything changes, this will be informed to us during the shift handover by the nurses.” The deputy manager was visible to people and provided support and guidance to staff as required.

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.

People were supported to access health care services as required. People’s information was kept up to date so that it could be shared with hospital and health care professionals in the event of a medical emergency. Staff had a good understanding of people’s health. Staff worked closely with relevant health professionals and records showed effective partnership working. A visiting professional told us “Staff know the residents and are familiar with the personalised care, preferences and daily routines.”

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

People used the telephone and iPad to stay in contact with family and friends. People’s communication needs were identified and supported. A person told us, “I am supported to do things electronically.” Staff knew people’s communication needs well and people were supported in line with the Accessible Information Standard. We observed staff recognised and responded to people’s body language and facial expressions used to communicate. For instance, when a person experienced discomfort we observed staff responded by providing support with their personal care needs. The provider ensured people had access to information in formats they could understand. We observed staff supported people to choose from the menu or the plated meals presented. The chef told us picture menus were being developed.

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 were involved in decisions made about their care and support. People were confident that concerns and complaints would be listened to and acted on. A person said, “No complaints yet. I’d try and have a word with the manager, there is a new one, I haven’t met her yet.” A relative told us, “I raised that [Person’s] buzzer wasn’t working, they put a new one in immediately.” People and relatives were encouraged to give feedback through complaints and compliments, care review meetings, residents’ and family meetings and surveys. Records shows concerns documented, investigated and analysed to identify any trends and prevent recurrence. Staff told us any lessons learnt was shared with them. Residents’ meetings enabled leaders to provide updates and sought people’s views and concerns about the quality of care and service. Meeting minutes were available and included actions taken. A person told us, “I have the honour of being the residents’ ambassador for April 2025.” The latest survey results were positive regarding the provision of person-led care, food and dining experiences, and the accommodation. Comments included, “Very caring, so patient and understanding” and “Thank you for providing such a welcoming and safe environment for my [Person] and giving [Relative] such peace of mind over their care.”

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

People’s needs were accessed before they moved into the care home to ensure appropriate adaptations or equipment required for their care was in place. People told us their care and support needs were met by staff. People told us there were no barriers to care. A relative said, “From what I’ve seen, there’s no discrimination ever.” Referrals to specialist services such as the falls team and speech and language therapy (SaLT) were completed when there was a change in people’s needs.Staff understood people had a right to receive equal access to health and care support, regardless of any disabilities. All areas of the care home was accessible by wheelchairs including the garden which enabled people to live as independently as possible. Leaders and staff had a good relationship with the Gp practice, and health and social care professionals. The care home had an accessible minibus which enabled people with mobility needs to go on outings.

Leaders and staff 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.

Leaders and staff recognised the barriers people living with dementia and other health conditions may face. Management and staff were trained in equality, diversity, and human rights and were treated equally and fairly. People told us they were not discriminated. People’s care plans contained information about what was important to them such as family, social, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff knew how to access people’s information for medical emergencies to promote good outcomes. The manager shared an example of how tailored care and support provided by staff and following effective infection control procedures had had a positive impact on a person’s physical health and wellbeing. The person and their family had high praise for the staff.

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.

People’s end of life wishes and preferences had been recorded and were understood by staff. Some relatives told us they supported their family members to express their wishes about their future care including where they wished to remain when that time came. Staff were trained to provide end of life care. Staff knew where people’s end of life plan and documents relating to their decisions were kept.