Clarendon Beechlands

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

People received care and treatment that was tailored to meet their individual needs. People and relatives felt listened to, and knew how to make a complaint, although we were advised it was rare a complaint was required as everyone was happy with the care being delivered. People’s wishes for the future were respected and planned ahead of time. The service was accessible to all, and people could receive information in a variety of formats.

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.

People received personalised and tailored support. This included having care plans that reflected their physical, emotional and social needs. The service had recently supported someone to move into a different bedroom as it better suited their needs.

Staff explained they knew people well. Staff could describe how people liked to receive their care, and other person centred information such as how they liked their hot drinks to be made, which brand of cigarettes they smoked, and their individual night time routines.

We observed staff interacting and communicating with people using different approaches to match their needs.

People received continuity of care when they had been seen by a healthcare professional.

Staff explained if they had been away from the service, on days off or annual leave, they were always briefed by senior staff about developments and changes since their last shift. They also made sure they carved out time to read the handover book to ensure they were up to date with people’s most current needs.

A CPN had been to visit a person at the service and had left positive feedback. They said “they were pleased at how well [name] is doing and it was the best that the CPN had seen [name] in years.”

The provider had handover processes in place to ensure important information was passed over to the next shift, and used multiple methods to ensure a robust handover. These included a verbal handover, a handover book, and GP visit form.

Relatives told us they felt informed and kept up to date with developments or concerns about their loved ones. One relative said, “The staff tell you exactly what is going on.”

Staff told us that some people living at the service preferred to communicate in their native language. We observed posters, menus and other documentation in alternative languages.

The service had varying methods of providing information to people, relatives and visitors. The service understood their role within the Accessible Information Standards. Documents could be printed in an easy to read format, meaning information is simplified and concise, and may include visual imagery to aid understanding.

People felt listened to, and knew how to make complaints, however advised they rarely needed to make complaints about the service. One person said they had made a complaint about the food and made some suggestions for menu changes, and another said they had made a complaint about another person living at the service, and staff dealt with it efficiently. Relatives felt involved and listened to. One said, “The name of the manager is [name], [staff member] is always at the house as well. I think [name] is very professional compared to who was there before. The residents come first. I have total trust in her confidentiality.”

The registered manager explained how families were kept informed of any changes to the health or wellbeing of their loved ones. They stressed the importance of seeking consent from people before sharing their personal information with their family members.

Regular meetings were held for people to participate in, and make suggestions for improvements to the service and to discuss any upcoming day trips or activities they would like to try. Not everyone chose to participate in these meetings, but those who did, felt the meetings were valuable. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed in collaboration with the person, and families where applicable.

People lived in a service which had been made accessible for all. People told us they could access the garden at any time.

The registered manager described the access arrangements for the service. They said, “We have a ramp at the side, a ramp all the way around the building so it is accessible for a wheelchair, we have a lift for people to access the top floor, and sledges [to support with evacuation in an emergency].”

The service has recently had a new lift installed which one of the people at the service was happy to demonstrate to the inspectors.

Regular risk assessments were undertaken to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the current accessibility arrangements.

Some people struggled to have equitable outcomes at local services such at the dentist, despite the best efforts of the service. One person told us, “I have to use the emergency dentist.”

The registered manager stated, “The main barrier to care [for people] is the dentist, we are really struggling to find dentists for some of the people here. They have massive waiting lists, I have called so many dentists in the area. The way we are dealing with it, we are having to ring 111 and access the emergency dentist.”

We contacted the most local dentist surgery where some people were registered, to seek their feedback, however, we did not receive a response.

People were consulted about their wishes for the future. Not everyone wanted to participate in these sensitive discussions which was respected by staff.

Staff showed us where a special memorial garden had been created for people who had previously lived at the service prior to passing away, and the commemorative wall within the service which displayed people’s photographs.

People’s care plans contained details of discussions which had occurred. Personalised care plans were in place, and these were reviewed regularly. If people did not wish to participate in these discussions, staff respected their decision.