Claremont Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed using recognised tools, including those for mobility and nutrition. These assessments identified risks and were updated when people’s needs changed, helping staff to understand people’s needs and respond appropriately.

Care reflected people’s assessed needs. Records showed staff supported people with personal care and mobility and adapted support where required. For example, people were supported to use appropriate equipment, encouraged with nutrition and hydration, and monitored where risks had been identified. This helped ensure people received care which met their needs and supported their wellbeing.
 

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence based good practice and standards.

Care and treatment supported people’s safety and wellbeing. Staff used established approaches to manage risks such as mobility, nutrition and skin integrity, and responded appropriately to changes in people’s needs, including seeking clinical advice where required.

Staff recognised any deterioration in people and acted promptly. For example, pressure care was supported through monitoring and escalation where concerns were identified. Relatives told us staff responded quickly when people became unwell, with one saying, “They called an ambulance and stayed with [person] before taking [them] for a scan.”

Medicines were administered safely and people’s nutrition and hydration were monitored, with staff taking action when concerns arose. This helped ensure people received effective care that met their needs.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Information about people’s care was shared through handovers and daily records, which helped maintain continuity. Staff were able to describe changes in people’s needs and the actions taken in response, ensuring care remained consistent and responsive.

Staff worked with external professionals when required, including general practitioners, emergency services and safeguarding teams when concerns arose. Records showed advice from professionals was followed and reflected in people’s care.

Relatives told us staff understood people well and responded when their needs changed. One relative said, “They know [person] well enough to know when [they are] not right.”
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people’s day to day health needs and responded appropriately when concerns arose. Records showed people’s health and wellbeing were monitored, including appetite, hydration and general condition, and action was taken when changes were identified.

Staff involved health professionals when needed. Where people experienced changes in their health, staff contacted general practitioners or other services and followed the advice provided to support people’s care.

People were also supported to take part in activities which promoted their wellbeing. These included one to one and small group activities tailored to people’s preferences and abilities, such as gentle exercise, games and sensory activities, which helped support people’s wellbeing and engagement.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There was limited evidence information about people’s care and safety was routinely analysed to understand outcomes or identify patterns over time. Monitoring systems focused mainly on recording activity rather than assessing whether care had improved people’s outcomes.

Although incidents, medicines issues and safeguarding concerns were recorded, this information was not routinely brought together to provide a clear picture of risk or improvement across the service. While audits were completed, there was limited evidence these were used to demonstrate sustained improvement. However, the service collected information about people’s care and staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s health and wellbeing at an individual level.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person centred care and treatment.

Staff understood the importance of seeking consent and supporting people to make decisions about their care. Where people were subject to restrictions, records showed the provider completed Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interests decisions. Deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisations were in place where required, with involvement from family members or representatives.

These arrangements demonstrated decisions were made lawfully when people lacked capacity, and staff recognised when formal processes were required to support people’s rights.

Some aspects of consent and capacity practice needed to be further developed. For example, while capacity assessments and best interests decisions were in place, these were not always regularly reviewed or consistently reflected in care planning documentation.