Clarendon 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

We assessed all quality statements within the responsive key question. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection in January 2023. The service was no longer in breach of regulation relating to planning personalised care to ensure people had choice and control and meeting their needs and preferences. This meant people’s needs were being met. Systems were in place to ensure people received person-centred care. People were listened to and provided with information. People, family members and external health and social care professionals told us they felt the service was responsive.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us their needs were met consistently and this was confirmed by family members and external professionals.

It was evident staff understood people’s needs and preferences and people were empowered to make decisions about their care.

At the last inspection we identified the provider had failed to ensure people were provided with person-centred care. This was a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 9. Care plans had been developed for each person. Care plans seen provided detailed information to enable staff to support people in a personalised way. People’s care records contained detailed information about their life history and things that were important to them.

People benefited from a staff team who knew them well, understood their care and support needs and knew where to seek additional support if required.

Staff told us they knew people well and had developed good relationships with them. Staff had access to up-to-date information to support them in understanding people's care needs and wishes.

Feedback from external professionals was very positive. For example, one health professional told us, “At the Multi-Disciplinary Team meetings it is clear from the level of detail the nominated individual is able to provide that she knows her residents well.” Another external professional said, “Contact with the home is extremely responsive."

People had up to date, individual, person-centred care plans which reflected latest best practice guidance. These were updated to reflect any changes to people’s needs. Care plans included information about people’s health and care needs as well as their life histories, languages spoken and what was important to them from a religious or cultural perspective. There was frequent involvement with external health and care professionals. This included planned monthly multi disciplinary meetings (health and social care) which helped to ensure care provided was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood people's communication needs. These had been identified and recorded in their care plans within a communication section. This included information such as any vision or hearing loss and how this may affect the person.

The providers confirmed information could be given to people in a variety of formats, including large print if required. We saw range of pictorial signs around the home (bathroom, toilet and directions to the lounge for example). These were bright and positioned at relevant places around the home. The service had a book with range of pictures of daily living activities and various foods as well as some basic non English language words which could be copied/used if required.

We observed the providers and staff interacting with people. It was evident that staff understood the best way to present information or choices to people, so that they could understand and respond appropriately.

People were given information about how to complain or make comments about the service. Should complaints be received, there was a process in place which would ensure these were recorded, fully investigated and a response provided to the person who made the complaint.

People were regularly involved in discussions and kept informed about any planned events at the home. A family member said, “I am always kept informed about every aspect of (person’s name's) care, medicines, etc. Communication is the key to everything, and they do it brilliantly here. They phone me, and the contact is excellent.” People told us they had not had reason to complain but knew how to if necessary. A family member said, "If there was something I didn’t like, I’d tell the matron.” People and other family members said they would not hesitate to speak to the staff or the manager if needed.

People's views about the service were welcomed by the providers. The provider said they usually did a walk round every day. They identified this gave an opportunity to provide feedback and to address any issues promptly. We observed the provider interacting in a friendly and positive way; people clearly knew them well and felt able to talk openly with them.

People's care needs and wishes were reviewed regularly to ensure their needs were met.

People told us the nominated individual regularly went to see them to seek out and listen to their opinions. One person told us, “She comes to see me, she is lovely." Another said, “I saw the manager just now, she comes to say hello”. Where people may not have been able to express opinions verbally, their needs were met by a staff team who knew each person as an individual and understood what was important to them. One family member told us, “They (staff) know him really well, and seem to get what he wants before he even knows it himself.”

Staff showed consideration for all people and knew each person well. Staff told us they had the time and resources to offer good support to each person.

External health and social care professionals were positive about their involvement in the service and felt staff and providers worked with them to ensure people received good care. For example, an external health professional said, “Plans and recommendations that are made at the (monthly Multi Disciplinary Team) meeting are followed through by the team at Clarendon.”

People were supported in their healthcare needs. For example, a family member told us, “[Person’s name] needed to go to hospital to have minor procedure. One of the providers took us both his own car and stayed with him during the procedure.”

The preadmission process and care plans viewed showed people were considered as individuals. This helped to ensure people received the care they required and reduced the risk of inequality in experience or outcome.

Many people were living with dementia and therefore at risk of inequalities however, the providers and staff understood their needs well. For example, we observed activity staff in communal areas. They clearly knew each person well and included everyone in conversations and activities.

Some staff had received specific end of life care training. The provider had links with the local hospice and was aware of how to access additional training and support should this be required.

The caring nature of the staff and their knowledge of people’s individual needs, likes and dislikes provided assurance people would receive end of life care in a sensitive and person-centred way.

Although no-one was receiving end of life care at the time of this inspection, the provider spoke positively about their desire to provide people with high quality care at the end of their lives.