You are here

Archived: Clarendon Nursing Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 11 June 2015

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 8 and 9 July 2014. Breaches of legal requirements were found. This was because call bells were sometimes out of peoples reach. The provider did not monitor the call bell system or check how long it took staff to attend to people. People’s care and care records were task based and did not focus on people as individuals with little information about people’s choices, their likes and dislikes and what they liked to do with their time. People were not always provided with the encouragement or support they needed to be involved in stimulating activities or follow their interests and hobbies.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on the 29 April 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Clarendon Nursing Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Clarendon Nursing Home provides nursing care for up to 51 people who have various complex needs including mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. There were 43 people living at the home when we visited. There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our focused inspection on the 29 April 2015, we found that the provider had followed their plan and legal requirements had been met.

Most people had access to call bells in their rooms or had pendants that they could carry with them and allowed them to call staff if they needed to. Risk assessments were in place for those people who did not have call bells.

A system had been developed to monitor staff response time to call bells on each floor of the service.

Improvements had been made to people’s care records which now contained information that focused on people as individuals. People’s life history, hobbies and interests, likes and dislikes were noted together with details of how they would like to be cared for. However, sometimes what was written in people’s care plan was not always carried out in practice, we spoke with the manager about how they were going to make this better.

More one to one activities were available for people to help stop them from feeling lonely or socially isolated. Staff had begun to put people at the centre of their care rather than focusing on the task alone. We observed staff encouraging people to join in with activities and engage with people at lunchtime.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 11 June 2015

We found that action had been taken to improve the safety of this service. Most people had access to call bells in their rooms or had pendants that they could carry with them that allowed them to call staff if they needed to.

A system had been created to help monitor and assess the quality of the call bell system and staff response time.

We could not improve the rating for safe from requires improvement because to do so requires consistent good practice over time. We will check this during our next planned comprehensive inspection.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 December 2014

Some aspects of the service were not effective. People had access to food and drink throughout the day but some people were not given a choice of food or offered alternatives if they changed their mind.

There was an on-going programme of training for staff to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain good health and have access to healthcare services. Care records were in place which showed staff had assessed people’s care needs. Care records gave staff clear instructions that enabled them to meet people’s needs through delivering appropriate health care and support.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 December 2014

The service was caring. People told us most staff were caring but were very busy. Staff had a good knowledge about people’s health care needs and preferences.  We observed staff supporting and assisting people in a kind and helpful manner for example at mealtimes.

People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity and we saw some staff had been appointed as dignity champions to help promote people’s dignity and respect.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 11 June 2015

We found that action had been taken to improve the responsiveness of the service. The provider had made improvements to the peoples care records which now contained information that focused on people as individuals. Staff were more involved with people and their daily activities. The care provided was less task led and becoming more person-centred.

We could not improve the rating for responsive from requires improvement because to do so requires consistent good practice over time. We will check this during our next planned comprehensive inspection.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 December 2014

The service was well-led. People who used the service and their relatives said the manager was approachable. Staff members told us they felt confident in raising any issues and felt the manager would support them.

There were systems in place to monitor and review accidents, incidents and complaints. There was evidence that learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

Processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service and action was taken when it was identified that improvements were required.