Claremont House provides accommodation and support for up to 18 older people who require assistance with daily living due to physical frailty and health needs, such as diabetes. There were 15 people living at the home on the day of the inspection, some were living with dementia and others needed support with their mental health. The home is a converted older building, bedrooms are on three floors and there is a passenger lift that enables people to access all parts of the home. The home is owned by the registered manager.

The registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This inspection took place on the 30 December 2016 & 3 January 2017 and was unannounced.

At our inspection on 4 and 19 June 2015 we found the provider was not meeting the regulations with regard to staffing levels, staff training, safeguarding people from improper treatment, person centred care, accurate and up to date records and assessing and monitoring the quality of the services provided. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider met these regulations.

The quality assurance and monitoring system had been reviewed and audits had been carried out to identify areas where improvements were needed. Changes in the care planning documentation had been made in line with these reviews; the care plans were up to date and had been developed with the involvement of people and their relatives, if appropriate.

The recruitment process was robust, it ensured only people suitable worked at the home and there were enough staff working in the home to provide the support people wanted. The home had a calm atmosphere and people said they were very comfortable living there. They liked their rooms, were very positive about the food and said activities were available for them to join in if they wanted to.

Care and support was personalised to meet people’s individual needs, records were up to date and had been reviewed regularly, including care plans. Staff managed and administered medicines safely. People had access to healthcare professionals as required.

Staff had an understanding of their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had attended safeguarding training; safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place and staff said they had read and understood these.

Complaints procedures were in place. The registered manager encouraged people, relatives and staff to be involved in decisions about how they service improved and, people and staff were very positive about the management of the home.

During our inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service. We also spoke with five staff members; these were the registered manager, three care workers and the cook.

We also took information from other sources to help us understand the views of people who used the service, which included residents’ surveys and residents’ meeting minutes.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received and with the staff team. One person who used the service told us, “On the whole the care is very good. They treat me very well.” Another person commented, “I’m very happy here. The people couldn’t be better. We are very well looked after.”

The people who used the service were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration. People were given choices of food and drink to meet their diverse needs.

We saw that the equipment used to meet the needs of the people who used the service was suitable for its purpose, well maintained and used correctly and safely.

The provider had also ensured that sufficient numbers of staff with the right skills and abilities were employed to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

As part of our inspection we spoke with six people who lived at the home, two visitors, the registered manager, the deputy manager, a senior care worker and two care workers. We also looked at the care records for five people who lived in the home and observed care workers supporting people.

People’s needs had been assessed and care and treatment had been planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

One person told us. “The girls are charming absolutely charming, they are there whenever I need their help and they let me do things at my own pace”.

A relative told us “I have no concerns about the care here; it’s a very good home”.

One care worker told us "We have time to spend with the residents, time to chat with them every day, that's one of the reasons why I enjoy working here so much".

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were cared for by staff who were well supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Staff records and other records relevant to the management of the services were accurate and fit for purpose.

People living in the home told us that they could make choices about everyday life and these were respected and responded to.

People told us that they were well looked after and liked living at Claremont House, being positive about the care, staff and services provided at the home. They told us the home was clean, comfortable and homely.

People told us that they were listened to and that surveys have been used to gather their views.

People living in the home told us that they could make choices about everyday life and these were respected and responded to.

People told us that they were well looked after and liked living at Claremont House, being positive about the care, staff and services provided at the home. They told us the home was clean, comfortable and homely.

People told us that they were listened to and that surveys have been used to gather their views.

Claremont House provides accommodation and support for up to 18 older people who require assistance with daily living due to physical frailty and health needs, such as diabetes. There were 15 people living at the home on the day of the inspection, some were living with dementia and others needed support with their mental health. The home is a converted older building, bedrooms are on three floors and there is a passenger lift that enables people to access all parts of the home. The home is owned by the registered manager.

The registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This inspection took place on the 30 December 2016 & 3 January 2017 and was unannounced.

At our inspection on 4 and 19 June 2015 we found the provider was not meeting the regulations with regard to staffing levels, staff training, safeguarding people from improper treatment, person centred care, accurate and up to date records and assessing and monitoring the quality of the services provided. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider met these regulations.

The quality assurance and monitoring system had been reviewed and audits had been carried out to identify areas where improvements were needed. Changes in the care planning documentation had been made in line with these reviews; the care plans were up to date and had been developed with the involvement of people and their relatives, if appropriate.

The recruitment process was robust, it ensured only people suitable worked at the home and there were enough staff working in the home to provide the support people wanted. The home had a calm atmosphere and people said they were very comfortable living there. They liked their rooms, were very positive about the food and said activities were available for them to join in if they wanted to.

Care and support was personalised to meet people’s individual needs, records were up to date and had been reviewed regularly, including care plans. Staff managed and administered medicines safely. People had access to healthcare professionals as required.

Staff had an understanding of their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had attended safeguarding training; safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place and staff said they had read and understood these.

Complaints procedures were in place. The registered manager encouraged people, relatives and staff to be involved in decisions about how they service improved and, people and staff were very positive about the management of the home.