Claremont

At this assessment we found the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations. The provider now managed risk effectively; risk assessments were reviewed regularly and the home was clean and generally well maintained. Where aspects of the property required repair, plans were in place to address this. Care plans were more comprehensive and the provider had introduced a new electronic care planning system. People usually received person-centred care, in line with their needs and preferences. However, there were still occasions when staffing levels impacted on flexibility to support people with individual community-based activities. People’s independence also needed to be promoted more consistently. Staff worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act and respected people’s choices and decisions. People’s capacity to consent to decisions had been assessed and there were now records in relation to any restrictions or decisions made in people’s best interests. The provider made further improvements to these records during the course of our assessment. Governance systems were more robust and audits were regularly completed. We noted though there were still some anomalies in record keeping and minor issues which had not been picked up in the audits. The registered manager took prompt action in response to our feedback and was keen to continue improving the service.

Staff were safely recruited and they received training, supervision and competency checks. Staff were caring and knowledgeable about people’s needs. Staff told us the registered manager was supportive and we received positive feedback from visiting healthcare professionals. Appropriate referrals had been made to other health professionals when needed. There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines in line with their prescriptions. Most staff told us there was good teamwork and felt morale at the home had improved.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Overall, the provider was working in line with these principles and ensured people were respected and treated well.

Following the service’s last inspection, we issued a condition on the provider’s registration. This condition has now been removed.