Clare Mount

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

We found people did not always receive person-centred care. This is a breach of regulation. Most people at the home had dementia and some people had distressed behaviours; however, staff did not demonstrate they were trained or knowledgeable around how to help and support the people to manage their conditions. Care plans were not always up to date nor reflected people’s immediate care needs. Poor language was used in some care plans when describing people and their behaviours caused by their conditions. Feedback from other health and social care professionals told us they were concerned about the care people received at the home and were visiting more often.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not experience person-centred care. Documentation about people and the language used about them was not always appropriate. For example, in one person’s care plan ‘I would like you to know section’ it only states, “I have challenging behaviour.”, and there is no information about the person’s personality, choices or preferences for care. The environment experienced by people was not always appropriate to promote good experiences for people, in particular those people with dementia. We found the environment was often noisy and busy and this may cause overstimulation and distress in those people with dementia. The home had a ‘quiet lounge’, however, we found there was a very large television that was often turned up loud making it difficult for people to hear conversation.

The registered manager told us staff treated people as an individual with privacy and dignity, and they gave people choice and asked for consent. They told us they regularly audit care plans for quality and accuracy. They also told us they speak to relatives and residents and complete a ‘this is me’ document to gain information on what the person was doing before they came to live at Clare Mount. However, the registered manager gave us information about people’s care needs at the start of the inspection and this information was found to be incorrect. This lack of knowledge about people demonstrated the registered manager did not know people well and was not always aware of people’s care needs. The deputy manager told us what person-centred care meant to them and they commented, “Putting the person as the whole focus. Ensure people get the tea or coffee they want. Give the person choice and go extra mile and not take advantage of my position. That is the priority.” However, we did not observe people always being offered choice and consent during our site visits. We found a lack of person-centred care throughout the operations of the home.

We found people did not receive person-centred care and this was a breach of regulations. Many people at the home had severe dementia and distressed behaviours and we observed staff did not demonstrate they were trained or knowledgeable around how to help and support the people when they became upset or distressed. We did not see where anyone had individual personal behaviour support plans in place to guide staff on how to safely and effectively support people when this was needed. We observed staff did not appear to know people well and their individual preferences for care. We found one person’s clothes were unclean and they did not have many belongings or clothes. We raised a safeguarding around this person’s poor care and treatment.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We received positive feedback from relatives relating to information shared with them about their loved one’s care. One relative told us, “All the time we are in contact with Clare Mount care home if there are any health concerns.” However, we found people’s experience of communication with staff to require improvement. People had communication care plans in place that were contradictory and stated mostly the negative aspects of the person’s communication. One person’s care plan stated they could communicate their needs; however, it also stated they were extremely confused and could not make decision or choices.

The registered manager did not demonstrate their knowledge or understanding of their legal obligation to provide information to all people in a format that is fully accessible for them. They told us they believed the Accessible Information Standard related to data protection and confidential information. We did not see any information was provided to people at the home in alternative formats. The registered manager told us they email a newsletter to relatives and invite them into the home once per year for a care review. The deputy manager told us staff had training in communication. Most people at the home had a cognitive impairment, communication difficulties; despite this, the deputy manager told us no-one at the home required a communication passport or specific support. This demonstrated a lack of knowledge around people's communication needs.

We had concerns about how staff could effectively and safely communicate with people at the home. We found several staff had a language barrier, on two occasions we asked for information and staff did not understand our request. In one instance a staff member gave us wrong information and, in another instance, they referred to another member of staff as they did not understand us. We also observed staff talking to each other in their first language on one occasion.

We did not see any evidence that people living at the home had been supported with their specific communication needs to provide their views on the care and support at Clare Mount. Relatives gave positive feedback about communication with the home. One relative commented, “Managers are always available on the phone or when visiting so that any concerns can be discussed; never had to complain.”

The registered manager told us they invite families into the home once a year to review their relative’s care plan. The registered manager also told us they have a staff suggestion box displayed in the home. They told us they look at an independent care home review website about the service and sent out feedback forms for relatives, professionals and staff. We asked the registered manager to supply a sample of these completed feedback forms, however, we only received 3 staff feedback forms and these were undated.

Care plans were not always clear and contained outdated information. We did not see evidence in care plans where people and their loved ones had been involved in care planning and reviews and their views reflected or documented. The registered manager told us they gave newly recruited staff presentations about people to introduce them. We were provided with 2 examples of these presentations and found this presentation was just one sheet and was poorly completed. We reviewed the meetings file and reviewed the recorded minutes of a relatives’ meeting minutes dated April 2024. It was unclear who was present at this meeting as it was not recorded who attended. The minutes recorded 2 events would be happening at the home: “person-centred paintings” and a summer fair. We found neither of these events had taken place and had been delayed.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not see evidence that people had been provided with the opportunity and supported to give their views and achieve their goals.

Staff and the registered manager told us they had not experienced anyone who had been subject to discrimination. We found the registered manager did not understand our questions around people’s equity in experiences and outcomes. We asked for examples of how people had been supported to overcome barriers, reach their goals or achieve one of their desired outcomes The registered manager gave us an example where a lady’s family had complained about her flooring and the home had changed it.

We requested the equality and diversity policy from the home be emailed to us; however, this was not received. We did not see where equality and diversity were addressed in care documentation or care delivery. We did not see people or their relatives were involved in monthly care planning reviews and there was no evidence that people themselves had been supported to communicate their choices and preferences about their care.

There was no-one at the service experiencing end of life care at the time of our inspection. Relatives did not wish to give us feedback about end of life care for their loved one.

The registered manager told us they invited families to stay at the home for as long as they wish when a person was experiencing end of life care. Relatives could sleep and rest in an empty room, were provided with food and could arrange to have a faith leader visit. The deputy manager told us staff receive end of life training. However, we were not assured of the efficacy of this training as it was completed along with many other training modules in a short period of time.

The registered manager told us they discuss end of life planning with families and people have an end of life care plan in place. However, in the care plans we reviewed, we only found generic care plans and none of them had been personalised to reflect people’s wishes.