Clare Mount

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This is the second consecutive breach of legal regulation relating to person-centred care and the second consecutive time the service has been rated requires improvement in the responsive domain.

This service scored 46 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

At this inspection, we found continued concerns relating to the provision of person-centred care. Although improvements have been made to the information in care plans with the assistance of the local authority, the experiences of person-centred care delivery for people had not improved and we saw the same interactions as at the last inspection. We found some activities were inappropriate for people with dementia, for example, people were given basic colouring sheets and pencils designed for very young children and people did not engage with this activity. There was no activity co-ordinator in post and there was no 1 to 1 activity offered to people who stayed in their rooms.

At the last inspection, we found the environment experienced by people was not always appropriate to promote good experiences for people, in particular those people living with dementia. We found the environment was often noisy and busy and this may cause overstimulation and distress in those people with dementia. We found our previous concerns remained. The home had a ‘quiet lounge’, however, the registered manager told us this was not in use at the time of our inspection due to decreased numbers of people living at the home.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We found continued concerns around the delivery of person-centred, individualised care. Interactions with people were not always effective and we found a lack of meaningful support strategies in place for people on 1 to 1 support, and people with distressed behaviours. Despite the home being registered with a service specialism of dementia care, we were not assured the registered manager and staff team understood the diverse health and care needs of people with dementia and how to effectively support them.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found continued concerns from the last inspection relating to the provision of information tailored to people’s individual needs. We did not see any improvements in this area and the shortfalls remained. Despite the majority of people at Clare Mount living with dementia, the registered manager told us there was no-one at the home who had specific needs around communication and they gave an example of using picture boards to aid communication with people. However, we did not see any staff using picture boards to communicate with people over the 3 days of our inspection.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We found improvements had been made to involving people’s families in the home. We saw that some surveys had been carried out and we received positive feedback from families about information shared with them. However, we did not see any evidence that people living at the home had been supported with their specific communication needs to provide their views on the care and support at Clare Mount. We did not see evidence in care plans that people and their loved ones had been involved in care planning and reviews, and their views reflected or documented.

There was no information on display at the home about how to make a complaint about the service and to whom people could complain to. The registered manager told us they had only received one complaint since the last inspection; however, this was not documented in the complaints file.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We were not assured that people were supported to access the care they needed. One person’s care plan did not contain up to date information about their palliative care needs and the recommendations about their end of life care pathway were not present in any care plans available to care staff. This meant there was a risk the person would not be able to access the care and treatment when it was needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People’s human rights were not always upheld as they had been living in an environment not conducive to their individual needs, and were not always supported to make decisions for themselves. Although staff had received training in equality and diversity, we found staff were not always treating people as individuals. We did not see evidence that people had been provided with the opportunity and support to give their views and achieve their goals.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We were not assured that people would receive good end of life care. People’s care plans about their end of life care were generic and not person-centred. Prior to the inspection, we were made aware of 2 safeguarding incidents relating to end of life care and we had been advised of the actions the registered manager was required to take as a result of investigations into these in November 2024. These actions required the purchase of end of life medication equipment and training for all nursing staff. We found the agreed actions had not been carried out and we asked the registered manager to fulfil their obligations and complete the actions during our inspection. This meant there was a risk the safeguarding concerns could be repeated and people may not receive appropriate end of life care at Clare Mount.