Archived: Claimont Health Ltd

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had made improvements since the last inspection under previous provider, Brevin Home care. During this inspection, all staff who were employed more than one year with the provider received annual appraisal, all clinical decisions were appropriately documented by staff and patients were asked to provide feedback about their experience using the service.
• Patients had care plans that were detailed and personalised to help support with their recovery.
• The senior team ensured that team discussions and decisions about patient care were always documented.
• Patients’ feedback was regularly collected and used to improve the service.
• At the last inspection, patients’ recovery plans did not contain information about their individual needs. At this inspection, staff had attended Diversity, Equality and Inclusion training and demonstrated an understanding of the potential issues facing vulnerable groups such as people with ethnic minority backgrounds, LGBT+ people, older adults and victims of domestic violence. They had a good tailored approach to match patients with specific needs in terms of their culture and ethnicity to an appropriate member of staff.

• The service provided safe care. The number of patients on the caseload was not too high to prevent staff from giving each patient the time they needed. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented, person centred care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment which were regularly updated.
• Staff provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients and in line with national guidance and best practice. An appropriate alcohol detoxification policy was in place and their clinical practice matched the policy. A protocol for the safe detoxification from opiates and benzodiazepines was also in place ahead of these treatments being offered to patients. Leaders completed clinical audits to evaluate the quality of care the service provided.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients in decisions and care planning.
• The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
• The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• We identified that Individual client lone working risk assessments were not always kept up to date.
• Staff had not received training in managing incidents of violence and aggression to help ensure they kept safe when lone working.
• Staff had not received an appropriate amount of specialist training to enhance their skills and experience. This included training in medicines awareness, food and hygiene, substance misuse and mental health awareness.