St Clare's 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed when they moved into the home and staff knew people well. Assessments covered relevant health, wellbeing and communication needs and staff used this information to support day‑to‑day care. People told us staff understood how to support them and relatives said they were kept informed about any significant changes.

Some documents needed updating sooner than planned review dates and information was not always refreshed when needs changed. This meant care plans did not always reflect the person’s current presentation. There was limited evidence that people or relatives were routinely involved in reviewing written plans, although relatives told us staff contacted them when concerns arose.

People received care and support that reflected their assessed needs and staff used their day‑to‑day knowledge of people to provide care in line with recognised good practice. Staff understood people’s routines, mobility needs and risks linked to eating and drinking, and acted on advice from external professionals when it was provided. People told us they enjoyed their meals and said staff supported them when needed.

Staff followed safe moving and handling techniques and we saw care delivered in a calm and consistent manner. People were offered choices around food and activities and staff provided alternatives when something was declined. When staff identified changes in a person’s health they sought advice from GP and community services and followed the guidance they were given. These arrangements supported care that was consistent and helped ensure people’s needs were met safely.

Staff worked well together and shared information effectively through handovers and day‑to‑day communication. They knew people well and passed on changes promptly so care was consistent across the team. People and relatives told us staff communicated clearly with them when there were concerns.

Staff had positive working relationships with local health professionals and sought advice when people’s needs changed. Relatives told us the home contacted GPs and community teams quickly and we saw an example where a practice nurse attended without delay following a call from staff. Staff followed the guidance they were given and used this to support safe and coordinated care.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and staff recognised when additional monitoring or support was needed. People told us they enjoyed their meals and one person said, “The food is pretty good, both quality and quantity.” Staff encouraged people to stay as mobile as possible and supported them to use walking aids safely. Another person told us, “The carers here helped me to get my walking skills back, which I lost whilst in hospital.”

When people showed signs of deterioration staff contacted health professionals promptly and followed the guidance they were given. Relatives said they were informed when concerns arose and felt staff acted quickly when someone became unwell.

People had opportunities to take part in activities that promoted social contact and wellbeing. The activities coordinator spent time with individuals and small groups and adapted sessions to people’s preferences. Staff supported people with personal hygiene when needed and encouraged positive daily routines. These arrangements helped people maintain their wellbeing and supported early action when health concerns were identified.

Staff monitored people’s day‑to‑day health and wellbeing and responded when changes were identified. People said staff supported them in ways that helped maintain positive outcomes. One person said, “I have good meals, my washing done and a decent bed,” Another person told us, “I get involved in activities as far as I can.” These comments reflected consistent support with routines, wellbeing and social contact.

Staff recognised when people needed additional input and sought advice from GP and community teams. Staff encouraged people to eat, drink and remain as active as possible and relatives said they were updated when concerns arose.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and we saw staff explain what they were doing and check people were happy for care to continue. Staff had training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood the need to involve people as much as possible in day‑to‑day decisions.

CCTV was used in communal areas but mental capacity assessments were not completed for people who may have lacked capacity to understand or consent to its use. Best interest documentation did not explain which options had been considered or why the option chosen was the least restrictive. It also failed to set out people’s views, the views of relatives or who had been involved in the decision, meaning it was not always clear how the decision had been reached or why alternatives had been discounted. Relatives told us staff contacted them when important discussions were needed. We saw staff recognise when people could make their own decisions and support them to do so.