Clarence House Care Home

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

Overall, we did not identify areas of risk or concern within the quality statements assessed for Caring.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People mainly gave positive feedback about their levels of independence and being encouraged to participate in activities and events arranged at the service. The service’s activity co-ordinator was held in high regard by people, for arranging a wide variety of activities in line with their individual hobbies and interests. The main concern people expressed as the limited access to areas outside of the service. The surrounding areas of the service consisted of an unmade road, making it unsafe for people to mobilise in the local area, as well as impacting on ease of access to transport. There was ramped access leading to the rear garden, but people told us the main seating area had been assessed as unsafe to use, and this was felt by people to impact on the ease of spending time outside. People, however, could enjoy panoramic sea views from most of the communal areas of the service, enriching their outlook and surroundings; some people told us that was part of the reason for choosing to live at Clarence House. People’s care records contained mental capacity assessments where required, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the local authority. However, from reviewing the provider’s DoLS log, we identified 1 person had an authorised DoLS in place with conditions attached to it, this information was not consistently reflected within their care records to ensure staff were aware and adhering to the conditions.

Staff and leaders were clear they worked closely with people and their families, as well as health and social care professionals where appropriate to maximise people’s levels of independence and involvement in the planning of their care. Staff and leaders demonstrated familiarity with each person’s individual needs, wishes and preferences, to ensure these were recognised in the way their care was delivered. We saw some good examples of care records in relation to people’s sexuality and other protected characteristics. We observed caring and kind interactions between staff and people, with the use of humour where applicable. The registered manager was observed to lead by example to their staff team in their manner and approach to the care of people, and to ensure this was kept at the centre of the care provided.

Staff completed training in relation to mental capacity, equality diversity and inclusion, and demonstrated implementation of this training into their practice and approach. Checks and quality audits were completed in relation to people’s lived experiences of care, however, some of these for example the dining experience and dignity in care audits would benefit from further development to ensure people’s views and feedback were incorporated into this process to add meaning.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.