Claremont Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
 

This service scored 75 (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 had a positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to inform care and improve practice.

Staff responded appropriately to safety incidents and safeguarding concerns and took prompt action to manage risks. This included updating care plans and seeking support from external agencies where required. For example, following a fall which resulted in hospital attendance, the person’s risk assessment and care plan were updated on the same day.

People told us they felt comfortable raising concerns with staff. One person told us, “They [staff] are easy to talk to; they respond well and listen to concerns.”

Staff shared information about incidents and changes in people’s needs and used this to adjust care, helping to ensure people continued to receive safe support.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff supported people safely and responded appropriately when people’s needs changed; they updated care plans and sought advice from health professionals where required. Records showed these actions were carried out in practice, including timely escalation and changes to care following changes in people’s health.

Information to support care was available and shared within the staff team. Staff were able to describe people’s needs and risks, and records showed how care was reviewed and updated following changes. Relatives told us people were well supported, with one relative saying, “[Person] is kept an eye on way more than if [person] was on [their] own.”

Risks were considered during admissions and transitions. Records showed referral information was reviewed and decisions were made about whether people’s needs could be safely met. Hospital transfers and returns to the home were managed appropriately, with care plans updated following people’s return.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff responded appropriately when safeguarding concerns were identified and took action to protect people. For example, following a safeguarding allegation, managers acted promptly to reduce risk, including changing care arrangements and working with external agencies such as the local authority. Staff understood how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act and, where required, appropriate authorisations were in place to ensure people were supported safely.

Incidents were recorded and investigated. However, there was limited evidence safeguarding information was routinely reviewed at service level to ensure consistency or identify patterns. For example, not all incidents had been recorded on internal tracking systems at the time they occurred.

Further development was required to ensure safeguarding processes and records were consistently applied across the service.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff understood people’s risks and took steps to reduce harm. This included supporting mobility and responding to changes in health or behaviour. Records showed care plans and risk assessments were followed in practice, and relatives told us people were supported safely.

Where restrictions were used, such as bedrails, staff were able to describe how these were applied and why they were needed. Some involvement from people and their representatives was evident, particularly where Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place.

While staff described informal discussions with people and their families, it was not always evident how people’s views were consistently reflected in care planning and risk reviews. Further development was required to ensure involvement was clearly recorded and regularly reviewed.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were supported in a safe and well maintained environment. Staff carried out regular checks of bedrooms, communal areas, equipment and outdoor spaces to identify and address potential risks. Records showed hazards such as wear and tear, cleanliness issues and minor repairs were identified and acted on in a timely way.

Equipment used to support people’s care was monitored and maintained. Checks of items such as hoists and pressure relieving equipment were completed regularly, and action was taken when issues were identified to reduce the risk of injury.

Some areas of the environment, particularly decoration and furnishings, had been identified by the provider as needing improvement. The provider had demonstrated a programme of improvements was underway to enhance the environment.
 

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Relatives told us staff were available and responsive, with one saying, “There always seem to be staff available to let me in, to talk to me, to answer questions.”

Staff received training to support them in their roles. Records showed mandatory training was largely completed, including areas such as safeguarding, medicines, moving and handling and infection prevention and control. We also saw evidence of face to face training in practical areas, which supported staff to develop the skills needed to provide safe care.

Regular supervision and support was provided to staff to help them carry out their roles effectively. Systems were in place to monitor training and supervision, and managers were able to demonstrate oversight of these areas.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean and well maintained, and arrangements were in place to reduce the risk of infection. We observed bedrooms, communal areas and equipment were kept clean, and any issues identified were addressed promptly to help keep people safe.

Staff followed expected infection prevention and control practices. This included appropriate hand hygiene and the use of personal protective equipment. Observations and records showed these practices were followed in day to day care, which helped reduce the risk of infection transmission.

Environmental arrangements supported safe practice. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed, and systems ensured appropriate separation of clean and dirty items. Equipment used in people’s care was checked and maintained to reduce the risk of contamination.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff followed processes to order, store and administer medicines, and checks were carried out regularly to maintain safe practice. Audits of medicines administration records, controlled drugs and storage arrangements were completed and showed systems were working effectively.

People and relatives were confident in how medicines were managed. Controlled drugs were managed appropriately, with accurate stock check records and safe arrangements for storage and disposal.

Some aspects of medicines optimisation needed to be further developed. There was no evidence people had experienced harm as a result of medicines practice; however, information to support the use of ‘as required’ medicines were not always consistently recorded. Further development was required to ensure documentation and review processes were consistently applied.