CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Claremont House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff understood how to manage risks. However, care plans, daily records and some medicine administration times were not always complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. No separate rating was given in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report nevertheless records mostly positive feedback about polite and respectful staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says people were supported to follow their own routines and give feedback about the service.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had open management, quality checks and systems for learning from incidents. However, notifications about a couple of accidents had not been sent to CQC until inspectors raised the issue.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care, but some records and incident reports needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 28 March 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed interactions, checked the building and infection control, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staffing information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe and Well-led. People were generally kept safe, medicines were administered safely, the building was clean and maintained, and staff worked with health and social care professionals.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. Care plans and daily records were not always detailed, medicine administration times were sometimes missing, and two accidents had not been reported to CQC on time. The registered manager acted during the inspection and was asked to improve reporting systems.
Safe care
Staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Accidents and incidents were reviewed, with action taken to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“Accidents and incidents had been appropriately responded to. Action was taken to learn from them and reduce the risk of them happening again through discussions with staff.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were administered by trained staff who understood when regular and as-needed medicines should be given.
“People's medicines were administered safely by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were supported to follow their own routines and staff understood their personal preferences.
“People were supported to follow their own routines. Staff understood people's personal preferences and cared for people in the way they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Clean and maintained home
Inspectors found the building clean and well maintained, with infection control arrangements in place.
“The environment was clean and well maintained.” from the report
Positive management
Staff described improved teamwork and said they could speak openly with the registered manager. Quality checks were used to address identified shortfalls.
“Quality assurance systems had helped to maintain the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Care records were not always accurate
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not fully reflect people's needs, and daily care records were not always detailed. The manager agreed to review and monitor them.
“However, care plans and risk assessments did not always accurately reflect people's needs and daily care records were not always detailed.” from the report
Medicine times were sometimes missing
needs fixingThe time some medicines were given was not recorded. This meant records did not always show that enough time had passed before the next dose.
“However, the time some medicines were administered was not always recorded which meant records did not always show sufficient time had passed between doses.” from the report
Some incidents were not reported on time
needs fixingNotifications about a couple of accidents had not been submitted to CQC. They were submitted during the inspection, and the provider was asked to review its reporting systems.
“However, we identified notifications had not been submitted for a couple of accidents.” from the report
Morning staffing
minorInspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, but some staff said the home would benefit from more staff on shift in the morning.
“However, some staff told us they felt the service would benefit from having more staff on shift in a morning.” from the report
Meals needed further improvement
minorFeedback showed meals had improved, but some comments during the inspection suggested more improvement was still needed.
“The feedback received by the provider noted improvements had been made regarding meals, though some feedback received during the inspection showed further improvement was needed.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans, risk assessments and daily records since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure the exact time of every medicine dose is recorded?
- 03What changes have you made to ensure all accidents and other notifiable incidents are reported to CQC on time?
- 04How do you decide whether there are enough staff during the morning period?
- 05What improvements have been made to meals since inspectors received feedback that further improvement was needed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and no separate ratings were given for them in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2023 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, April 2018
Claremont House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some shortfalls around staffing pressure, activities and safety checks.
This was the first comprehensive inspection since the home opened. It was unannounced and took place on 28 February and 5 March 2018. Inspectors toured the building, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, observed care, and checked care records, recruitment files, training and quality audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were handled safely, staff understood safeguarding, care plans covered people's individual needs, and people were treated with dignity and respect.
There was enough staff on the inspection days, but some people and staff said they sometimes had to wait for help. Inspectors also found an unlocked balcony door that posed a risk, although it was locked on the second inspection day. Other points included staff still needing dignity training, limited activities for people unable to leave their rooms, and some complaints responses that felt defensive.
The home had a registered manager and systems for checking quality. Managers investigated incidents, monitored nutrition and infection risks, responded to complaints within set timescales, and used feedback to plan improvements.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff whose competence was checked regularly. Errors were investigated and lessons were used to improve practice.
“The administration of medicines was safe and staff were knowledgeable about the process and procedures in place.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans recorded people's health needs, communication, history, choices and interests. Staff were able to use this information to provide individual support.
“People's electronic care plans showed that there was a strong commitment to person centred care and risks to people were assessed and managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and interactive. Inspectors saw staff supporting communication, activities, privacy and dignity.
“We observed care being delivered in line with people's care plan.” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People could choose from group and individual activities, and relatives were welcomed to take part. The home supported meaningful events and links with the local community.
“People were enabled to engage in activities both within their home and in the local community.” from the report
Strong oversight
Managers and the wider organisation used regular audits, meetings and feedback to identify improvements. Staff said management was approachable and supportive.
“There was a strong commitment to continuous improvement with extensive quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Waiting for help at busy times
needs fixingAlthough inspectors found enough staff on the inspection days, some people and staff said help could be delayed, including help to use the toilet. The provider said staffing levels were being reviewed.
“Sometimes we can't help people as quickly as we would like because we need another staff member with us.” from the report
Balcony door safety
seriousAn unlocked door to a first-floor balcony posed a risk during the inspection. It was locked on the second day, but families should ask how this is now checked.
“A door leading to a first floor balcony was unlocked and posed a risk for people.” from the report
Dignity training not complete
minorStaff records showed that some staff still needed to attend dignity in care training, even though inspectors found people's dignity was respected in practice.
“Staff training records showed that staff still needed to attend dignity in care training.” from the report
Activities for people in rooms
minorThe home offered many activities, but some staff thought more should be available for people who could not leave their rooms.
“Some staff felt that more activities needed to be offered to those people who could not leave their room.” from the report
Complaints responses
needs fixingComplaints were investigated and answered within the home's timescales. However, inspectors felt some responses sounded defensive, and the provider agreed future replies should be more open and person-centred.
“We spoke with the provider as we felt some responses to complaints were defensive.” from the report
- 01How have staffing levels been reviewed since the inspection, and how do you prevent people waiting for help at busy times?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure doors leading to balconies remain locked when needed?
- 03Have all staff completed dignity in care training, and how is this training kept up to date?
- 04What activities are available for people who cannot leave their rooms?
- 05How are complaints now answered so that replies are open, person-centred and not defensive?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five ratings assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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 House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2018.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.