Claremont Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

People, relatives and staff all felt the service was well managed and the leadership team were visible and approachable. Governance systems were effective in identifying areas for improvement which were rectified in a timely manner. There were multiple opportunities for people, relatives and staff to feedback any concerns or suggestions to improve the service.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

All staff said they felt supported by their line manager as well as the deputy and registered manager. One staff member said, “I do feel supported. You can talk to them any time when you need help or are confused. You can approach [the registered manager]. She is free with everybody.” Another staff member told us, “I feel supported, we have staff meetings and floor meetings. They are useful and we are encouraged to talk in the meetings about things, or we can speak privately if needed.” The registered manager told us they were supported by their own manager, and enjoyed their role. The registered manager and deputy told us they often provided care if there was a sudden shortage of staff and enjoyed this.

The registered manager had been in post for 10 years which had created stable leadership within the service. The management team knew people and their staffing team well. Regular staff meetings took place, including care staff, senior staff, team leaders and unit managers meetings. These looked at a range of items such as capacity assessments, care plans, staff competencies, service improvement plans and reviews. The registered manager was experienced and suitably qualified to undertake their role. They were supported by a deputy manager and a team of nurses and care workers.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us governance systems were in place to ensure people received quality care. One staff member told us, “We read the care plans.” Another staff member told us, “It is best to read the care plans. There is enough background in them to help you get to know people.” This led to staff being confident in the care they were delivering. A staff member told us, “I have no safety fears whatsoever for residents at Claremont Court.”

There were monthly home quality and clinical governance meetings attended by the nursing staff. These looked at people at risk, current concerns and actions to be taken. For example, they saw a person had lost 3.6 kg in 6 months and had implemented regular weight checks and contacted the person’s GP for a medical review. Equipment was in good working order. We saw evidence these were regularly serviced and checked. Dates on equipment indicated they had been checked recently. There were regular audits undertaken of all areas of the home to ensure any areas of concern was promptly addressed.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff were able to feedback ideas for improvement which were taken on board by the management team. For example, one staff member told us, “Yesterday we had a meeting where we said that there were not enough meetings for this floor. [The registered manager] agreed, so hopefully we will meet together more.” The registered manager also informed us of other upcoming changes to the service, such as transferring care plans to a different system and installing a music zone on the first floor for people.

Action was taken to improve the service after areas for development were identified. For example, a door closing mechanism had been sped up following an incident where a person was able to follow a staff member through the door into the stairwell. All stakeholders were asked to complete satisfaction surveys to discuss their experiences of the service. Outcome of the latest survey for people showed an overall satisfaction. Where there were issues raised, we saw evidence these were addressed. The provider understood their responsibility in relation to duty of candour. They informed the relevant bodies of all incidents, accidents and complaints and responded to these in a timely manner.