The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Clore Manor

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

160-162 Great North Way, Hendon, London, NW4 1EH (020) 8203 1511

Provided and run by:
Jewish Care

All Inspections

3 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 20 June 2017 at which one breach of legal requirements was found. The registered provider did not manage medicines safely.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach.

We undertook a focused inspection on 3 October 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and met legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Clore Manor on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Clore Manor is registered to provide residential care to a maximum of 72 older people including people with dementia. The home is split into 3 units. It is run by Jewish Care.

The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our focused inspection on 3 October 2017 we judged that the provider had made improvements in medicine management and had now met legal requirements

20 June 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 20 June 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2014 the service was rated as good.

Clore Manor is registered to provide residential care to a maximum of 72 older people including people with dementia. The home is split into three units. It is run by Jewish Care. On the day we inspected there were 67 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People were positive about the service and the staff who supported them. People told us they liked the staff and that they were treated with dignity and kindness.

However, we found errors with medicines administration and recording for some people using the service. We have asked the provider to take urgent action to address this.

Staff treated people with respect and as individuals with different needs and preferences. Staff understood that people’s diversity was important and something that needed to be upheld and valued. Relatives we spoke with said they felt welcome at any time in the home; they felt involved in care planning and were confident that their comments and concerns would be acted upon.

The care records contained information about how to provide support, what the person liked, disliked and their preferences. People who used the service along with families and friends had completed a life history with information about what was important to people. The staff we spoke with told us this information helped them to understand the person.

The staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Risk assessments were in place for a number of areas and were regularly updated, and staff had a good knowledge and understanding of many health conditions.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for the number of people home.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. People were satisfied with the food provided at the home and the support they received in relation to nutrition and hydration.

There was an open and transparent culture and encouragement for people to provide feedback. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. People told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident they could express any concerns and these would be addressed.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).We found that the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and conditions on authorisations to deprive people of their liberty were being met.

The management team provided good leadership and people using the service, relatives and staff told us they were approachable, visible and supportive. We saw that regular audits were carried out to monitor the quality of care. However, daily and monthly medicines audits had not identified any of the administration and recording issues picked up during this inspection.

There was one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

17th October 2014

During a routine inspection

We inspected Clore Manor on 17 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection.

Clore Manor is registered to provide residential care to a maximum of 72 older people including people with dementia. It is run by Jewish Care. On the day of our visit there were 67 people living in the home.

Before our inspection we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. No concerns had been raised and the service met the regulations we inspected against at their last inspection which took place on 18 October 2013.We also spoke to staff of two commissioning teams that have placed people at the home, and the local borough safeguarding team.

People told us they were very happy with the care and support they received. One person said, “It’s more like a family than a home.” People also told us they enjoyed the activities provided. One person told us, “The care is outstanding here.”

People who needed assistance to eat and drink were well supported at lunchtime and were encouraged to make choices about what they ate and drank. The care staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home and many of the staff we spoke with had worked in the home for a number of years.

We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Medicines were managed safely and a robust procedure ensured that care workers had detailed guidance to follow when administering medicines. Staff completed extensive training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs

The registered manager had been in place since July 2013. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. She provided good leadership and people using the service, their relatives and staff told us the manager promoted high standards of care. One member of staff said, "Management is good and supportive.” People told us, “People here are very caring” and “I am impressed with the care here, it must be difficult for the staff.”

People were involved in the planning of their care and were treated with dignity, privacy and respect. People were offered a wide range of activities which were facilitated in-house or in the local community. Complaints were responded to appropriately and resolved in line with the providers 'complaints procedure. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

18 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection followed up on our last inspection on 16 April 2013 when we found that staff supervision levels were lower than the home specified and we could not conclude whether training levels were adequate. At our inspection on 18 October 2013 we found that the new registered manager had taken action to increase supervision.

We found from records and from speaking with staff that staff members received a good level of training. Staff received appropriate professional development and support. These findings indicated that arrangements were in place to protect people from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

16 April 2013

During a routine inspection

The provider had systems in place to gain people's consent to their care and treatment. Care plans were comprehensive and showed that people had been involved in their development. They assessed people's individual needs and risks, including religious and cultural needs.

The provider had taken several steps to protect people from the risk of abuse and prevent it from happening. A safeguarding policy and procedure was in place and staff understood the types of abuse and what they should do if they suspected abuse was occurring. Systems were in place to gather feedback from people and act on it. Audits were undertaken to assess the quality of the care and treatment delivered.

Risks to the delivery of safe and appropriate care and treatment were not fully mitigated because staff supervision levels were lower than the provider specified and because systems did not provide full assurance of staff's training levels. Records relevant to the management of people's care were accurate although the provider may wish to note that records regarding staff training needed improvement and this had also been found in a senior manager's audit a few months ago.

4 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective.

People who use the service told us that staff were kind and respected their privacy. They confirmed that staff treated them with care, respect and dignity. One person commented, 'The staff will put themselves out, they're very nice people to be with, if you forget something they will fetch it from your room for you'. Another person commented, 'It's an excellent home. They look after me'.

People were offered a choice in relation to activities, care preferences and food and drink. They told us that they were satisfied with the food provided by the home. One person commented, 'Its not exceptional, medium range, fair, you can order an omelette if you don't like it'. Other people described the food as, 'nice', 'passable' and 'not bad'.

People told us that they felt safe at the home. They said they had no concerns or complaints about their care but they would speak with their relatives, the manager or the staff if they needed to. They were positive about the staff who supported them. Their comments about staff included, 'They do their best. They come as soon as they can. You've got to have a bit of patience, give and take'.

We saw that all records in relation to the care and treatment of people using the service were being stored securely. Staff understood the importance of keeping written information safe and only available to the individual concerned or their representative if appropriate. This meant that the service was protecting people's confidentiality.

14 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We spent the most part of our visit observing staff interaction with people and talking to people about their care and experiences of living in Clore Manor. We saw staff interacting with people in a sensitive and respectful manner. We saw staff offering people choices and explaining to them about their care in a way that they could understand and make informed decisions. The choices offered to people included what to eat, where to sit and how to be supported. People told us staff were kind and treated them with respect. They said they were satisfied with their care and had no complaints. People told us they knew who to talk to if they had a concern.

People spoke positively about care staff. They said staff did "a good job" in providing assistance and care whenever they needed them. We observed people were relaxed when interacting with staff.

We saw people moving freely without restriction within the communal areas of the home. We noted suitable equipment such as walking frames, wheelchairs, and passenger lifts were available to enable people to access communal areas. We noted in care plans that some people were able to go out into the community and return to the home independently.

We saw many people participating in a number of activities during our visit. People told us they enjoyed these and other activities provided to them by the home.

Most people we spoke to said there were enough staff at all times to meet their needs. They said staff were always available when they needed them. However, some people said sometimes there were not enough staff around to respond to their needs. A person said on some occasions during the night they had to wait for up to fifteen minutes for care staff to respond to the call bell after it was activated.

In one of the lounges we observed at lunch time there were three care staff and one team leader to help people with their meals and to administer medication. We noted many of the people in the lounge were independent in helping themselves with their meals but there were some people who needed assistance and who had to wait for a longer time for staff to help them with their meals.

People told us that staff listened to them and responded appropriately to their queries. They said the manager came to them and asked how they were. People felt that the home was good and they were satisfied with the service.