CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Claremont Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Claremont Court: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and a clean environment.
This was a targeted inspection on 3 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, managed infection outbreaks and kept its infection control policy up to date. They also found the home clean and hygienic.
People were supported to see loved ones and go out safely. Their individual needs, including mental health and wellbeing, were considered when assessing COVID-19 risks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating across all five CQC questions.
Safe contact with family
People were supported to receive visitors and go out safely. Visiting needs were assessed individually, including during outbreaks and end-of-life care.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones, to have visitors and to go out in a safe way.” from the report
Good infection control practice
Staff understood how to use protective equipment, manage outbreaks and use testing to reduce the spread of infection.
“Staff knew how to correctly use personal protective equipment, how to manage any outbreaks of infections to prevent its spread, and how to effectively use the national testing programme to support good infection prevention and control.” from the report
Individual COVID-19 risk planning
People's individual needs, including their mental health and wellbeing, were considered when risks from COVID-19 were assessed.
“The registered manager ensured people's individual needs, including their mental health and wellbeing, were discussed, included and considered when assessing individual and home-wide COVID-19 risks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing any current staffing pressures, and what effect do they have on people's care?
- 02How do you support visits and trips out when there is an infection outbreak?
- 03How do you assess and support each person's mental health and wellbeing when managing COVID-19 risks?
- 04How often are cleaning, disinfection, laundry and infection control procedures checked?
- 05How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Claremont Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some mental capacity records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 4 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, incident records, staff files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were administered safely, staffing levels were suitable and the home was clean. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.
Care planning had improved since the previous inspection. The Responsive rating increased from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors still recommended that the home make sure mental capacity assessments are specific to each decision when needed.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given by trained nurses whose competence had been checked. Inspectors found staffing levels suitable for people's needs and saw staff respond promptly to requests for help.
“People's medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's histories and preferences. They supported independence, offered choices and protected privacy and dignity during personal care.
“During the inspection we observed interactions between people and staff that demonstrated kindness and compassion.” from the report
Improved care planning
The home had acted on the previous shortfall in care planning. Plans reflected people's needs, interests and wishes, including end of life preferences.
“At this inspection we found the improvements had been made and the provider planned care in a way that was sensitive to people's needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from activities such as exercise, games, crafts, outings and visits from local children. Inspectors found these activities matched people's needs and interests.
“People were very happy with the activities on offer at the home and we noted these matched people's needs and interests.” from the report
Accessible management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about management. Regular meetings, surveys and audits were used to involve people and monitor the service.
“There was strong leadership at the home which ensured management was accessible and tasks were delegated appropriately.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingMental capacity assessments were not always specific to the decision being made. Inspectors gave the example of covert medicines being used without a separate assessment for that particular decision.
“We recommend that the provider reviews their processes to ensure decision specific mental capacity assessments are completed when necessary.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure mental capacity assessments are specific to each decision?
- 02If medicines need to be given covertly, what assessment and best-interest process will you follow?
- 03How will you continue the improvements made to care planning since the previous inspection?
- 04How are staffing levels checked against the needs of people living at the home?
- 05How will you involve our relative and family in care reviews, activities and decisions?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Claremont Court
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 October 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.