Archived: Clarendon Nursing Home

Updated 24 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 October 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team comprised two adult social care inspectors, an inspection manager, a specialist advisor, and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service and statutory notifications we had received. Notifications are forms completed by the organisation about certain events which affect people in their care. We reviewed the provider information return (PIR).This form asks providers to give key information about the service, what it does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information in the planning of the inspection. We also reviewed previous inspection reports and information from people visiting the service.

We met with 20 people living at the home. We spoke with 10 people to hear their views about their care. Some people were not able to comment specifically about their care experiences, so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people living with dementia. We also spoke with three relatives who were visiting.

In addition, we spoke with 16 members of staff from all areas of the service including the registered manager, deputy manager and area manager. We reviewed 14 care files and six staff files. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service. During our visit we had discussions with a visiting health professional to obtain their views of the service provided to people.

Updated 24 December 2016

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 October 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

This was the first inspection of the service under the new provider.

Clarendon Nursing Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 47 people, some living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, there were 46 people using the service.

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

People at the service felt safe. Staff knew how to respond to abuse and had completed safeguarding of adults training. The service provided a safe and well maintained environment for people, visitors and staff. Risk assessments supported people’s needs. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. There were procedures and checks in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed. The management of medicines was safe. The service was managing infection prevention and control by following appropriate guidance.

Staff were provided with regular supervision and training to support people with their care needs. People were supported to have a healthy diet and to maintain good health. The service was working within the principles of the MCA. We saw evidence of completed mental capacity assessments, best interests meetings care records. Staff had completed MCA training.

People’s comments about staff were generally positive. Care planning arrangements considered people’s individual needs and preferences. We observed good practice and incidences of warm and compassionate care. People’s choices and decisions were respected. Staff providing care and treatment respected people’s privacy and dignity. People’s independence was supported. People and their representatives were involved decisions around their care and treatment.

People received personalised care and support that was responsive to their diverse needs. Care records and support plans identified people’s needs, risks and goals. People and relatives were confident that they could raise concerns with staff and there was a complaints system in place. There was a programme of activities for people who could attend group activities. There were no activities in place for those who could not make group sessions. We were told an additional activities coordinator had been recruited and was waiting to start.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team and said they were approachable. Staff meetings were held regularly giving staff the opportunity to feedback their thoughts about the service. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Records relating to the provision of care were fit for purpose.