Clement 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

Staff were positive about the registered manager and management team and felt they were approachable. The leadership team felt they had a positive working relationship with other professionals and professionals feedback generally supported this. The providers systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of care were not always robust so concerns were not always identified. The oversight of incidents in the home was not effective at ensuring appropriate action was always taken and learning identified. Some audits had not always been completed and some audits had not been effective. The provider failed to follow ensure the effective oversight of the quality and safety of care for people.

This service scored 62 (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.

Staff were generally positive about the approach of the registered manager and management team. One staff member said, “I think [the registered manager] is doing a good job. There have been a lot of positive changes. I feel able to go to them.” Other comments included, “[The registered manager] is lovely, [they’ve] helped me out a lot” and, “I always feel if I have a problem, [the registered manager] is very approachable.”

The registered manager was undertaking additional courses for their development and was keen to support staff to develop in their careers.

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.

The provider told us they were aware of some medicine issues, however we continued to find extensive concerns with medicines. This meant measures put in place to resolve issues had not yet been effective at resolving issues, so people continued to be exposed to the risk of harm. Staff repeatedly told us people were not always supported in a timely way so the oversight of staffing had not been fully effective.

Quality assurance processes in place had not identified the environmental concerns we found and had failed to fully assess the risks the environment posed to people. People had care plans and risk assessments in place. However, one person did not have a care plan in place following an episode of ill health, which staff may need to respond to in future. Following our feedback, this care plan was put in place, but this omission had not been previously identified. The provider used a staffing dependency tool to calculate the number of staff needed. However, the oversight of the deployment of staff was not always effective as we found people were not always supported in a timely way. Staff recruitment records also needed strengthening.

The registered manager told us they felt they had a good working relationship with partners, and they felt able to raise and discuss areas to improve on with partners.

Professionals who worked with the service were generally complimentary of the partnership working. One professional told us, “I have had no personal concerns and I feel the home do listen to advice we give and generally respond to this. I have not had good reason to raise any concerns and I personally feel that I could approach the management team directly if this arose.”

The registered manager explained some audits had not been completed recently so there were missed checks in some areas. The registered manager also explained they did regular walk arounds to check on the home, however these were not documented so there was no evidence of these checks being done.

There was a lack of clear oversight of incidents to ensure appropriate action was taken in response to an incident . This meant there was not always learning to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. For example, a person had needed physical intervention during an incident and there was a lack of recorded action in response to this incident. The provider had an action plan in place, and an action had identified accident and incident forms needed to be reviewed in a more timely and productive way. However, the deadline for the completion of this had passed but we continued to find concerns, so the action had not yet been effective. This meant there had not been enough learning and improvement to ensure people were always supported in the most appropriate way.