Clarence 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.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were able to personalise their bedrooms and have visitors in the home. However, we could not be assured that people were consistently provided with person centred care due to issues found in relation to errors in peoples plans of care, the reported lack of activity in the home and some people’s experience of poor interactions with staff.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Staff did engage with external health professionals who visited the home and referrals were made when required. However, information and advice coming into the service was not always accurately recorded in care plans or followed.

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had access to dining menus in the home and show plates were used at mealtimes to support people to choose their meals. Staff members were knowledgeable about people’s communication needs and were able to describe how different people demonstrated their needs.

The provider had processes in place for people to share feedback and ideas. Resident’s meetings took place within the home and the outcomes of these were presented in easy-to-follow format of ‘you said, we did’. There was some evidence that suggestions from people at the service had been implemented, for example people had asked for themed food nights and the service had scheduled in an Italian cuisine evening.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We could not be assured that people had access to the care and support they needed in all areas due to issues identified around a lack of access to meaningful activities and conflicting information found in people’s care plans.

Staff and leaders did not always act on information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Relatives gave examples of issues raised with the service that had not been acted upon. Relatives told us, “When [relative] arrived they didn’t have a shower for over a week, I kept asking staff, there is a miscommunication between them”, and “I have told staff my concerns [about the care delivered] but they are not paying attention to [relative].”

People were able 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 had the opportunity to share their wishes for end-of-life care in their care plans. Staff received training in end of life and palliative care.