Claremont Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People felt safe at Claremont Court, and their relatives echoed this. Safeguarding policies and practices were in place to protect people from abuse. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people’s care needs were met and any individual risks to them were mitigated. The environment was clean and tidy with safe infection prevention and control practices in place. People’s medications were managed safely.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe at the service. One relative said “He is very well looked after, always clean and well fed. I would ask to speak with whoever was in charge (if there was an issue) but I’ve never needed to do that.”

Staff were aware of their responsibility to safeguard people and who to contact in the event of any safeguarding concerns. One staff member told us, “We have a skin map on [our care planning system] and we would report to the nurse if we saw any marks or bruises. We can go to the nurse who advises.” Another staff member said, “I could whistleblow if I wanted to. I could always talk to the area manager.”

The provider was proactive in raising safeguarding concerns with the local authority and CQC. Internal investigations were completed when incidents had occurred. Safeguarding documentation demonstrated appropriate action was taken to safeguard people where necessary.

People felt staff knew how to safely deliver their care in a way that minimised risk of harm. One person said, “They do help me with my shower in the morning as I need help now.” Relatives echoed this, saying they felt staff knew their loved ones and their needs well.

Staff were able to describe how they managed risks to people within the service. One staff member who was providing one to one care to a person told us they mainly walked around the service with the person when they were awake to ensure they were safe and did not fall.

We observed safe care being delivered to people. Staff were seen hoisting a person from their wheelchair to a chair. This was done safely and the staff member spoke to the person throughout the transfer explaining what was about to happen. We also observed a staff member supporting a person to mobilise with their walking frame. The staff member used appropriate moving and handling techniques and ensured the person was standing up straight before they started to walk.

Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) were in place. These confirmed what support each person would need in order to evacuate the building in an emergency such as a fire.

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

On the whole, people and their relatives felt there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. One person told us, “Staff are around.” A relative said, “Theres always staff around. There is never a delay in mum receiving care.”

Staff felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One staff member said, “There is enough staff and as you can see, now that we have finished all of our jobs, we have time to sit with people during activities.” Another staff member told us, “Theres enough staff. On occasions staff may call in sick and then we are busy, but this does not happen often.” Staff were able to tell us about people, their needs and how to manage their individual risks. Staff said they received appropriate training and could ask for additional training in any topic they felt would be useful to their role. One staff member told us, “We have online and then physical training such as moving and handling, It was okay. It prepared me for the job.” Another staff member said, “You can ask for additional training.”

We observed safe staffing levels throughout the day. People’s needs were met whilst staff were also available to spend time talking with people on a personal level and join in with activities. Staff were kind in their communication with people.

Staff were recruited through robust processes. Prospective staff provided evidence of their performance in previous roles, a full employment history, evidence of their right to work in the UK and also evidence that they were fit to undertake the role. Staff also underwent a Disclosure and Barring Service check prior to starting work. This helped ensure the provider employed only staff suitable to work in this type of service.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Relatives echoed this, telling us they had no concerns in this area. One relative said, “[My loved one] receives the necessary medication and this is regularly reviewed.” Staff were aware of overuse of sedative medication and the ill effects this could have on people. The deputy manager gave an example of a person who had transferred from another care home and was successfully managed on less medication than previously administered. The management team expressed pride in the team and stated this was a good example of the specialised care provided to people at the service.

Staff felt confident in their abilities to deliver medicines safely. One staff member told us, “The clinical lead does my competency check. It's once a year.” Another staff member was able to confirm that certain types of medicines, such as those to treat Parkinson’s disease, must be given at certain times in the day. They told us, “We make sure we give him his medicines at specific times.”

Processes supported safe medicine management. The medication store rooms were clean and well-organised. Temperature checks for the room and medication fridge were completed daily and were always at a safe level. Individual written protocols were in place for delivering as and when (PRN) medicines. This included information on when they should be given, and how long there should be between doses.