Claremont Nursing Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service did not have an effective quality assurance system which meant that shortfalls were not always identified or addressed promptly. Issues were identified at the last inspection and while some improvements have been made, the provider remains in breach of the regulations in relation to good governance.