Claremont

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 of the Responsive key question we rated it Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans were generally detailed and person centred. They provided staff with information about how to meet people’s needs. They were regularly reviewed and updated, including when people’s needs changed. Daily records showed that care was provided in line with their needs and we observed staff responding to people’s requests and preferences.

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. The provider worked with the local authority and health partners to provide holistic support to people. This included working alongside the community nursing team and other professionals, like foot health practitioners. The provider made appropriate referrals to other services where required. Where people needed to go to hospital, the provider had a system to make sure relevant medical and care information was transferred with them. They also kept families informed. This helped support with continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were suitable for people’s needs. There was information about people’s communication needs in their care plans and staff considered people’s individual needs in how they presented information and options to people. Some information was available in easier read or pictorial format, such as the satisfaction surveys and personal evacuation plans. There was opportunity to expand the range of accessible information further.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and relatives were offered the opportunity to give feedback in annual satisfaction surveys and review meetings. They could also speak to the registered manager or staff if they wanted to raise any issues. The provider had a complaints procedure in place. The registered manager told us they hadn’t received any formal complaints over the previous year, but they were able to provide some examples of where they had responded to minor concerns or issues and appropriate action was taken as a result.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff provided support to ensure people could access health and social care services when they needed to. This included practical and emotional support to attend appointments. Staff promoted people’s human rights and considered any access needs. There was though a lack of recorded evidence about how the provider had advocated for individual funded support hours for one person, to enable more equitable access to the community.

The provider included information about people's needs in relation to their mobility, health and communication, to help promote accessibility.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tried to tailor people’s care in response to this. However, we found there was some inequity of opportunity for people to access the community for individual activities, due to the staffing levels and funding arrangements. The provider tailored the rota to try and ensure each person could go out for planned activities of their choice, however, short notice flexibility was difficult due to the staffing levels which reflected funding arrangements. This had some impact on the equity in people’s experiences. This was not raised as a concern by people or relatives.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs, including any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care plans included some information about people’s interests and what was important to them. The provider had an Equality and Diversity policy, and staff had received training in relation to the Equality Act.

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 had opportunity to share and record any preferences they may have about the end stage of their lives, and this information was recorded in people’s care plans. Relevant people were involved in these discussions. Nobody was receiving support with end of life care at the time of our assessment, but the provider advised they would work alongside other relevant health professionals should this be required.