Claremont House

Claremont House is a purpose-built residential care home in Beverley providing personal care to up to 75 people who may be living with dementia, mental health needs, physical disabilities or sensory impairments. The accommodation is situated across three floors, with each floor having its own lounge and dining room. At the time of the inspection, 40 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were kept safe by staff who understood how to manage risks and actions to take if they had any concerns for people’s safety and well-being. Staff worked closely with professionals to meet people’s needs. Accidents and incidents had been suitably responded to, lessons were learned, and changes made. Although not all notifications had been submitted.

People’s medicines were administered safely, and staff were knowledgeable about when people needed their medicines. Appropriate checks were completed during staff recruitment to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people. The environment was clean and well maintained.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We received mostly positive feedback form people and their relatives about the care they received and the polite and respectful staff. Systems were in place to gather and monitor people’s feedback about the service which was used to improve the service in the way people wanted.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 12 April 2018).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about medicines, staffing and infection control practices. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

Recommendation

We have made a recommendation regarding reporting systems for notifiable incidents.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service since it opened in April 2017.

The environment at Claremont House was extremely pleasant, inviting and calm. The registered manager and the staff team were all welcoming and approachable. There was a strong commitment to developing and improving this new service.

Medicines were managed safely and staff had a good knowledge of the medicine systems and procedures in place to support this.

Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse; they had training in this area and were able to put this into practice. There was sufficient staff to ensure people were kept safe and the provider advised how they were working proactively to continuously review the level of staffing required and was considering additional staff in certain areas of the service.

There was a positive caring culture within the service and we observed people were treated with dignity and respect.

People’s electronic care plans showed that there was a strong commitment to person centred care and risks to people were assessed and managed. People were supported to make their own decisions; this was encouraged and reflected in their care plans. Care plans demonstrated that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were catered for. A choice of meals was available three times a day and drinks were made readily available throughout the day. The electronic care planning system highlighted any potential nutritional concerns, such as weight management and the management team responded in a proactive manner.

We found that staff had been recruited safely and had developed a wide range of competencies which demonstrated they could perform their duties effectively. Training was provided to meet the needs of people; this enabled staff to develop their knowledge to provide person centred care. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal and told us they felt supported in their roles.

People’s wider support needs were catered for through the provision of daily activities provided by activity officers, care staff and visiting community groups.

The management completed investigations into incidents and accidents. Investigations were thorough and comprehensive and lessons learned were reflected upon and recorded. This meant that the likelihood of future similar incidents was reduced.

The service was clean and infection control measures were in place. The management had robust audits in place to monitor the risk and spread of infection.

There was a complaints procedure in place which allowed people to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the service they received. All complaints were acknowledge and responded to within their set timescales.

There was a range of quality audits in place completed by both the management team and the provider. These were up to date and completed on a weekly and monthly basis. All of the people we spoke with told us they felt the service was well-led and that they felt listened to and could approach management with concerns. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and enjoyed their jobs.