Clarence House 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

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

This service scored 71 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People told us they had good access to health and social care professionals, with support from staff or family as required to attend appointments. The local GP offered weekly face to face visits at Clarence House, which people found helpful, as it meant they could form personal relationships, and jointly agree strategies to meet their health care needs. People had regular access to foot care, opticians and dentists when required. People spoke positively about the food provided, and the amount of choice available. The importance of nutrition was recognised by the kitchen team, who encouraged people to gain weight for example through snacks and fortified foods to increase overall calorie intake. However, we did identify some people whose records stipulated for them to be weighed weekly, and the corresponding weight records indicated they were not being weighed as frequently as required to ensure staff (and medical professionals where applicable) had good oversight of changes in people’s weights.

The registered manager led by example with their levels of enthusiasm and compassion to ensure people experienced positive care outcomes. Leaders and staff gave examples of how they advocated for people with external health and social care professionals. Staff and leaders spoke positively about their good working relationships with the local GP surgery, and the impact this had on accessing timely support for people. Their strong working relationships assisted the service to work in a collaborative approach to achieve positive outcomes for people in relation to the management of complex health conditions.

We reviewed quality audits and checks in relation to the oversight of people’s weights. The records lacked information to demonstrate changes in weight were being reviewed, analysed, and reflecting actions taken in response. This would also improve the likelihood of gaps where weekly weights were meant to be completed for certain people, being picked up and addressed in a timelier manner. At the time of our assessment, there was a person requiring specialist care and support in relation to their continence care. We reviewed the training, competencies and guidance provided for staff. Whilst some staff members had previously worked as nurses, and it was felt were able to support less experienced staff with this aspect of the person’s care routine, more needed to be done to ensure staff had completed recognised care and were having regular reviews of their competencies. We also identified the need for more details around local specialist nursing support to ensure staff knew who to contact with any concerns.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.