Clare Mount

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This is the second consecutive time the service has been rated requires improvement in the caring domain.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and were welcomed into the home. One relative told us, “Staff are lovely with [relative], they pop in to see [relative] regularly. They're kind and caring.” We observed staff were softly spoken and gentle when providing care and support. Most people appeared appropriately presented; however, not everyone had clean clothes and brushed hair. We were not assured that people were receiving good and consistent oral and personal care. We observed that some people had poor oral care and records demonstrated that people did not receive baths and showers on a regular basis.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Since the last inspection, the provider had implemented a new electronic care record system and had good support from local authority teams to ensure care plans included more information about people’s needs and preferences. As a result, care plans had improved in relation to information about the person’s life and background. However, our observations of day-to-day care provision for people demonstrated this improved information had not impacted on people’s experience. Concerns found at our last inspection remained and we found people were not always treated as individuals and care delivery was still found to be reactive and task based.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

During our observations we did not find improvements relating to how people’s independence, choice and control was promoted and the concerns raised at our last inspection remained. Although staff were caring and gentle, we observed occasions where staff provided support with little communication. We were not assured that staff always understood people’s requests due to an evident language barrier. We observed multiple occasions where staff did not appear to understand people’s calls for assistance. For example, we observed multiple occasions where people asked for a cup of tea or a cup of coffee and they were often not responded to or were given a plastic cup of cordial juice. The people who were receiving 1 to 1 funded support were subject to constant restriction. Although staff were keeping people safe from injuring themselves, people were not always free to express themselves either verbally or physically. For example, every time one person sat forward, they were asked to sit back and offered a drink and each time they verbalised loudly they were asked to be quiet and offered a drink. Although staff were kind in their manner, this demonstrated a significant impact on the person’s independence, choice and control. It was evident that staff were not skilled or trained in how to provide effective and appropriate 1 to 1 support.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff were not always able to respond to people’s immediate needs due to a language barrier or their lack of training and guidance on how to respond appropriately to someone who cannot always communicate their needs due to their cognitive impairment. We observed one person had soiled their trousers and was walking around the communal areas. One staff member repeatedly tried to assist the person over a period of time by asking them to come to the bathroom; however, the person did not engage with this request and the staff member did not alter their strategy. This meant the person was left in an undignified manner for a period of time.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they had no concerns about their employment or the management of the home. The registered manager told us they support staff and regularly take them out for outings. However, there was limited evidence supplied to us to give assurances that there were effective processes in place relating to the promotion of staff wellbeing.