St Clare's Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

People received care that reflected what was important to them. Staff knew people well and used this understanding to shape how support was offered. One person said, “I get involved in activities as far as I can,” showing staff enabled people to take part in ways that suited them. Another person told us they were happy with how staff supported their daily routines and choices.

We saw staff check what people wanted before offering support and adapt their approach depending on the person’s preferences. Some people preferred quieter interaction and staff were attentive to this, offering conversation or support at a pace the person was comfortable with. Relatives said staff discussed any emerging concerns with them and kept them informed when things changed.

Although care plans did not always show how people and relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing their care, staff demonstrated a person‑centred approach in practice. Interactions were tailored, and decisions were shaped around what each person preferred rather than following a fixed routine.

People received support that was coordinated and delivered in a consistent way. Staff shared information verbally throughout the shift, which helped maintain continuity even when written documents had not been updated. People told us the home ran smoothly and relatives said they were kept informed when concerns arose or when health advice was needed.

Staff worked well with external professionals and sought guidance when people’s needs changed. Relatives gave examples of staff contacting GP or community teams promptly, which helped ensure the right support was put in place without delay. Staff were familiar with the advice provided and used this to adjust how they supported people.

A stable staff team meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their usual routines and preferences. This familiarity helped staff recognise changes early and respond in a coordinated way.

People were given information in ways that met their individual communication needs and staff had clear guidance to support this. Communication plans described how each person preferred information to be shared and we saw staff follow these approaches in practice, for example taking time to explain things, breaking information down into smaller steps or checking understanding during conversations in communal areas.

Staff also supported people to understand information that related directly to them, which helped them take part in decisions about their care. People said they felt able to ask questions and that staff took time to clarify anything they were unsure about. These arrangements helped ensure people could understand and engage with the information provided to them.

People were given opportunities to share their views and contribute to how the home was run. One person took on a representative role and attended residents’ meetings to help pass information between people and the manager. This supported communication and helped ensure views were heard.

Staff adapted communication to meet individual needs. After a residents’ meeting, staff read out the actions to one person so they could understand what had been agreed and what would happen next. People said they felt comfortable speaking with staff and felt listened to when they made suggestions or expressed preferences. However, some people had asked for a written menu to support meal choices, but this had not yet been put in place, which showed the home needed to follow up on feedback more consistently.

People were able to access the support available in the home and staff made adjustments so no one was disadvantaged. Staff understood how people preferred to move around the home and provided support with mobility when needed so people could reach communal areas and take part in activities.

People were supported to understand what was available to them, including choices at mealtimes and opportunities to join activities. The layout of the home was accessible for the people living there and staff assisted people to attend healthcare appointments or community activities when required. People told us they felt able to ask for help if they needed support to access different areas or activities.

People experienced a consistent standard of care regardless of their needs or backgrounds. Staff knew people well and supported them in a way that reflected their individual routines and preferences. People told us they felt included in everyday life at the home and said staff treated everyone fairly.

We did not see any differences in how people were supported based on their needs or abilities. Staff adjusted their approach depending on how each person preferred to communicate or take part in activities, which helped ensure people were not disadvantaged.

People were supported to discuss future care when specific decisions were needed, and staff sought advice from health professionals when situations changed. Staff explained they would talk with people about their wishes if their health deteriorated, and involved others when appropriate, which helped ensure decisions made at the time reflected what the person wanted.

There was no evidence that people or relatives had been offered the chance to discuss end‑of‑life wishes ahead of time. Records did not show what was important to people, their priorities or how they wished to be supported as their needs changed. Although some people may decline these conversations, the opportunity should still be provided.