Claremont Parkway

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders and staff understood the provider’s vision and values to provide good quality care, with supporting policies and procedures. Leaders were open and transparent and demonstrated a positive inclusive culture and approach to continuously develop the home and ensure people remained at the heart. Daily meetings with heads of departments, provided leaders with an overview of the service and key information was shared with staff. A staff member told us “Good communication both ways makes great team.” Staff expressed being happy working at the care home.A staff member said, “Staff meetings and supervisions are becoming more regular, as we didn't have a manager for a bit. Meetings are informative.” Meeting minutes covered all areas and encouraged staff to give feedback and share ideas. However, not all staff could tell us how leaders explored their knowledge in relation to the policies and procedures. The provider assured us this would be included in staff meetings to ensure all staff have a consistent understanding and expectations. Feedback from people and relatives indicated there was a good culture within the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider, leaders, managers and staff were passionate about making the care home welcoming and homely. Feedback we received from people about how the service was managed was positive.Not all the people and their relatives we spoke with knew who the manager was. Comments included, “I met a manager a few weeks ago when I first came in. I can’t remember the name. It seems to be well managed from what I’ve seen so far, I’m pleased with the place.” The service has a manager, and they had begun the process to be registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC). The manager has the skills, knowledge and experience, and they were supported by the provider, to deliver good, effective quality care. They understood their responsibilities ,and kept up to date with relevant changes and notified CQC as required by law. Staff felt supported and valued. Following the on-site assessment visit, the manager was confirmed as the registered manager.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There had been changes in leadership at the care home. Some staff felt more confident to speak with the nurse on duty or the deputy manager in the first instance. A range of mechanisms were in place to enable staff to speak-up confidentially and this has been strengthened. The ‘speak-up champion’ has been instrumental in empowering staff to give feedback and shared examples of issues raised with leaders and the responsive action taken. Staff were complimentary about the difference made by the speak-up champion. A staff member said, “We have [Name], our speak up champion, who I trust and they will raise issues with the management and things are getting sorted. It's much better now.” A staff member said, “The manager is very good. I can go and speak to her anytime. I can raise concerns. If I want to raise any concerns anonymously I can it’s not a problem.” Staff were also positive about the leadership approach of the directors who they consistently described as warm, friendly and engaging.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider and leaders ensured equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce was in place. Staff were treated fairly and equally with regards to their protected characteristics, for instance flexible working patterns and privacy to observe their faith. Leaders recognised when staff needed additional support or training and responded appropriately. A staff member told us, “I've had my work patterns change, which suits me better as it means I can work and support my family.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Monitoring processes and procedures covered all aspects of service, risks, performance and delivery of quality care, treatment but were not fully effective. Further scrutiny and accountability was needed to ensure governance oversight was robust.

The provider’s quality processes and systems were used to monitor all aspects of the service. These included audits, and checks to monitor if people were treated with kindness, compassion and received safe care. The provider and managers completed a range of audits and observations. We checked a sample of the completed audits, and where issues had been identified action was taken and leaders monitored the progress of improvements. However, some issues we found during this assessment had not been identified through the provider visits, manager walk-arounds or in the previous audits carried out. For example, gaps and inconsistencies in record keeping, equipment checks and also no action taken in response to the external electrical installation inspection. These issues were raised with the provider and leaders. They assured us action would be taken and that the action plan would be updated and the progress of improvements would be monitored. The provider had begun reviewing people’s care records in readiness to move to an electronic care system. A maintenance staff member had been recruited to support and manage the maintenance of the facility and equipment. The provider had a contingency plan in the event of an emergency and for evacuation of the home. Following the onsite visit the provider confirmed issues raised had been addressed.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

People were supported by a variety of health and social care professionals to ensure their needs were met and made referrals to the health professionals when required. A visiting professional told us “[Senior care assistant] has a positive approach to supporting people living with dementia. “[Senior care assistant] was tactile and assured [Person] by gentle hand holding and used smiles to which SS reacted to in a positive way feeling calm and safe.” We received the following feedback from a professional “I was supported by deputy manager, nurse during my visit, [they] had a good knowledge of the resident we were reviewing. Deputy manager explained their clinical needs well and updated me on how they were. I also saw several carers during my visit who were also very helpful and friendly. I also visited the resident in their room and they looked well cared for.” Quality monitoring teams and stakeholders told us leaders and staff had worked collaboratively, and when issues and concerns had arisen the directors had been open, transparent and responsive to ensure people remained safe.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider, managers and staff recognised the importance of learning lessons from incidents, audits and feedback, as an opportunity to improve the service and people’s quality of life. Reflective practice was used effectively, and learning was shared with staff. Leaders and staff were responsive to feedback and addressed concerns raised during the on-site visit. We saw innovative practices by a nurse setting time on the handset to ensure the Parkinson’s time-sensitive medicine was given on time. The ‘resident ambassador’ advocated people’s views and any action taken was shared with people. There were good links with local community groups. The manager told us about their involvement in local and national initiatives, for example, some people had agreed to participate in the national oral health survey and a local college were involved to design part of the garden.