Claremont Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
 

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders took responsibility for managing concerns. Records showed when incidents occurred, leaders acted promptly, including liaising with external partners and taking action to protect people. This demonstrated accountability and oversight in response to risk.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and seek advice from managers, and described a supportive team environment, which reflected a positive day to day culture.

Leaders were visible within day to day operations, for example during handover meetings, and responded appropriately when concerns arose. Staff were able to openly discuss events and changes in people’s needs, which supported shared understanding across the team.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and had the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively.

Leaders were able to manage operational challenges and respond to serious concerns. Records showed when risks were identified, leaders acted promptly, including liaising with external partners and taking action to protect people. This demonstrated accountability and effective decision making in response to immediate issues.

Leaders also provided support and direction to staff. Supervision records were detailed and reflective, supporting staff to develop confidence in their roles and manage responsibilities effectively.

Staff told us they felt able to approach leaders for support and advice, although there was less evidence of structured opportunities for staff to contribute to wider service development.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Policies and governance arrangements were in place to support staff to raise concerns, and there was evidence relevant information relating to speaking up was reviewed.

Staff were able to raise concerns and escalate issues when needed. Evidence showed when concerns were identified, including safeguarding matters, leaders responded appropriately and took action to protect people.

Staff told us they felt able to approach managers to seek advice and raise concerns. This indicated speaking up was supported in day to day practice.
 

The provider valued diversity in their workforce and worked towards an inclusive and fair culture for staff.

Staff were treated fairly and there was no evidence of discriminatory practice. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training, which supported awareness of inclusive working practices.

Staff were supported in their roles through supervision and day to day management, and there was evidence managers were approachable and responsive to staff needs.
 

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were not consistently effective in providing clear oversight or driving improvement. While information was collected across a range of areas, it was not routinely brought together or reviewed in a way which provided a clear understanding of risk, performance or outcomes across the service.

Although actions were taken in response to issues, it was not always clear governance systems supported sustained improvement. Audits focused on completing checks and recording actions rather than reviewing whether these had improved outcomes or reduced risks over time. However, leaders had systems in place to monitor quality and safety and were actively involved in day to day oversight.

A range of audits and checks were completed across key areas, including medicines, infection prevention and control, the environment and care delivery. These showed managers were engaged in monitoring the service, and some areas, such as medicines management, were overseen consistently.

Improvements were introduced following our inspection, including strengthened oversight tools and processes. However, these were not yet embedded at the time of our inspection, and it was too early to demonstrate their impact.
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership so services worked for people. They shared information with partners and worked with others to support people’s care.

Staff worked with external partners when required. Records showed staff engaged appropriately with health professionals, safeguarding teams and emergency services when concerns arose. Where people experienced changes in their health or wellbeing, staff made referrals and shared information to ensure people received appropriate support.

Leaders and staff cooperated with external agencies during safeguarding processes and followed agreed procedures. This demonstrated the service understood its responsibilities when working with partners to protect people.

People also benefited from links with the local community and external organisations. For example, staff worked with specialist providers to deliver activities such as therapy animal visits, which supported people’s social interaction, stimulation and emotional wellbeing. Staff also maintained links with a local nursery, enabling visits from young children, which provided meaningful opportunities for intergenerational interaction and helped people remain connected to their community.
 

The provider focused on learning, innovation and improvement. They encouraged ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Staff responded to issues as they arose and took appropriate action to address risks. Leaders and staff investigated incidents, safeguarding concerns and medicines issues, updated care plans and introduced additional controls where needed. This showed the service was able to act quickly to support people’s safety.

There was evidence of developing approaches to learning and improvement. Leaders shared key messages with staff following incidents and used meetings and communication systems to reinforce expected practice. Feedback was also gathered and acted upon, including through surveys and environmental improvements.

However, learning and improvement were not yet consistently embedded at service level. While action was taken in response to issues, it was not always clear how information was used to inform wider learning or drive sustained improvement over time.