Clare Court 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. At our last assessment we found a breach of regulation in relation to person centred care. At this assessment we saw improvement in the provision of person centred care. The service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We saw many examples of improved personalisation of people’s care. For example, staff provided people with plates, cups and cutlery adapted to their needs. This enabled them to remain more independent when eating their meals. Although we spoke with 2 people who said they had not seen their care plans, they told us they had been asked about how they wanted to be supported. Staff were guided by care plans which detailed people’s wishes and preferences. We saw people eating breakfast at times which suited them, eating snacks and enjoying drinks as they wanted them. Some people talked to us about how they would stay in their room if they wanted to and come out if they wanted to be sociable. Some people said it was important to them to be able to lock their room when they were not using it. One person told us, “I have a key, so I lock [my door]. It feels like my room then. Another person told us about how the layout of their room supported their particular mobility needs well. We saw the presentation of people’s rooms was much improved. Décor had been refreshed, and rooms were more personalised. People’s doors were labelled both with their name and symbols of what was important to them.

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 staff team worked well with local health care providers to make sure people received the right care for their needs. People were given opportunities to worship and follow their religious practices. People had been consulted about places they would like to visit for a trip or day out. Efforts had been made to ensure people received support from professionals in line with their specific care needs and wishes.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw signage for how people, staff and relatives should respond in a fire emergency was not in line with the home’s procedure. Guidance for staff in terms of policies and procedures was conflicting regarding who should take charge in the event of an emergency. This could have caused confusion and a poor response in the event of a fire emergency. We raised these issues with the management team, and they were addressed during our assessment. We saw the use of some signage around the home to help people orient themselves. Information was available in large print, braille and other languages as needed. Staff received training on the legal requirements of data protection.

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. The people and relatives we spoke with all told us they knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern. People told us the manager came to visit them regularly to enquire about their wellbeing. This gave them regular opportunities to share any feedback or comments with the manager. People and staff were clear about how to raise concerns if they had them. Relatives told us although communication with the staff team had not always been good historically, they were now kept up to date by staff. One relative told us, “They always let me know if anything is wrong with [my loved one].” The provider sent surveys annually to both people and staff to seek their feedback about the service. The management team shared evidence to show changes had been made as a result of the feedback given.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to appropriate and well maintained equipment which removed barriers to care and treatment. People who were able could move around their home and engage in activities as they wanted to, with support from staff as needed. Staff were alert to vulnerabilities which may disadvantage people and present a barrier to safe and timely care. For example, if a person had an unwitnessed fall but was unable to explain what had happened. In this instance additional checks were in place to enable staff to assess the person’s needs carefully. This meant people had equal support from and access to emergency services when they needed them.

Staff and leaders 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. For example, efforts were made to limit barriers presented by different cultures and languages amongst people and staff. Cultures were actively celebrated to improve understanding and awareness for all. The provider had also considered reasonable adjustments to the premises to ensure accessibility for everyone. For example, lifts were in place, there was accessible shared lounge and dining areas and gardens. Toilets and bathrooms had been adapted to ensure they could be used by everyone.

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. Records reflected discussions held with people and their loved ones. These guided staff to ensure their wishes about their future care were understood and met. People who were on an end of life care pathway had anticipatory medicines in place. These would enable to staff team to make every effort to help people remain comfortable as they approached the end of their lives. When people had expressed their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, these were recorded to ensure staff had a clear understanding. Important information about people’s wishes were easy to locate on the electronic care planning system to enable easy reference by staff.