Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Clevedon Court Nursing Home, Clevedon.

Clevedon Court Nursing Home in Clevedon is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 11th July 2018

Clevedon Court Nursing Home is managed by Peter Allen Investments Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Clevedon Court Nursing Home
      32 Dial Hill Road
      Clevedon
      BS21 7HN
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01275872694

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-07-11
    Last Published 2018-07-11

Local Authority:

    North Somerset

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

8th May 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Clevedon Court Nursing Home provides accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care for up to 50 people. During the inspection there were 36 people living at the home.

The accommodation is arranged over two floors, with bedrooms on both floors all with en-suites. The home has various lounges and sitting rooms, offices, a medicines room, kitchen facilities, communal bathrooms and toilets.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Requires Improvement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Clevedon Court Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. The provider provided an action plan of how they were going to address the shortfalls found during that inspection.

At this inspection we rated the service as Good.

People were not having their views sought for the purposes of continually evaluating and improving such services.

People felt safe and staff were able to identify abuse and who to go to.

People were supported by adequate numbers of staff to meet their individual needs.

People received their medicines safely although some records required improving.

People had a personal evacuation plan in place in case of an emergency. Care plans contained risk assessments and support plans confirmed people’s individual needs.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Capacity assessments were in place including best interest decisions if required.

People had mixed views on the meals provided at the home. We observed people having choice and different meal options, however, there was little opportunity to sit at a dining table due to their being minimal tables and chairs in the dining rooms.

People had referrals made when their health needs changed and most records confirmed people’s individual daily intake of fluid although one person didn’t have an accurate record of their fluid output.

People felt supported by staff who were kind and caring and who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were given choice about how they spent their time and we observed people spending time in their rooms, the communal areas and visitors were free to visit when they wished.

Care plans contained important information relating to people’s like and dislikes, their previous occupation, families and routines. Pre-admission assessments were undertaken prior to people living at the home. Where complaints were raised these were investigated although the providers complaints policy needed updating.

Quality assurance systems identified shortfalls and actions required. People and staff were happy in the home and all felt it was a homely positive environment.

Notifications were made when required and people were encouraged to remain independent.

9th January 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on the 9, 10 and 13 January 2017 and was unannounced. Clevedon Court Nursing Home is registered to accommodate up to 50 people. It is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. On the first day of the inspection 48 people resided at the service. On day two and three of our visit 47 people were staying at the service. Eight of these people had been admitted for rehabilitation care. The local hospital was closed for refurbishment so the local authority were using eight of Clevedon Court Nursing Home beds to replace these closed beds until the refurbishment was completed.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager had an ethos of honesty and transparency and managed complaints effectively.

The provider had failed to have effective quality assurances systems that ensured the assessment and delivery of care for people was appropriate. This resulted in them failing to identify the issues we found during the inspection. For example, people’s records, including risk assessments and care plans did not always accurately reflect people’s needs or the care they required. They were also not always personalised to reflect the individual’s needs. One staff member told us; “There is a lack of readable documents for people staying for rehab.” In addition, people’s end of life care was not consistently planned to reflect their needs and preferences. People did not always have personalised end of life care plans.

People living at the service were not always able to communicate their views and experiences to us due to their healthcare needs, so we observed care provision to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We found people did not always have their dignity respected. For example, everyone was supplied with a continence aid on their bed even if they had not been assessed as needing one.

We also found aspects of medicine management were not always safe. Their medicines were not always managed correctly and it was unclear whether people had been given all their medicines at the right time.

People who stayed for rehabilitation were cared for by a separate team of visiting professionals. Their care was discussed at regular “ward rounds” and included arrangements for external physiotherapists and occupational therapists to visit. However the staff employed by Clevedon Court Nursing Home were not included in the ward rounds and had no care plans or other information about the care of these people. Yet staff were providing day to day care for them. One staff member said; “We don’t have time to go on ward rounds.” Staff confirmed these people often had higher needs than they were aware of and that they did not know their full medical, health or personal history, including nutritional and social preferences. There was minimal amount of information for the transition of these people from the main hospital to Clevedon Court for onward care and rehabilitation. Pre- assessments were not always carried out to ensure people’s needs could be suitably met.

Improvements were needed to how people were kept safe in emergency situations, such as fire. For example, the service held an emergency box for staff to use in the event of an emergency and this held evacuation plans, building plans and information on people and their next of kin contact details. However, this held outdated information about who was currently residing in the service. Not everyone had an emergency evacuation plan in place to assist staff in an emergency. This could place people at risk as the emergency service would not h

30th October 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

When we inspected the home in July 2013 we found that records regarding health and safety and equipment maintenance could not be located. Information regarding decisions made on behalf of people who used the service could also not be located. We saw that the records kept to monitor staff training had not been recently updated.

We found that the policies and procedures used to guide the staff to support people safely had not been recently updated. This put people at risk of unsafe care.

We found during this inspection the home had taken action to improve aspects of their record keeping and were developing systems to ensure records were kept accurately.

26th July 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with eight people who use the service, people told us that the staff were “lovely and caring “and “I couldn’t ask for anything better”.

People told us the staff treated them with respect and were polite to them. People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected.

We found that care plans were sufficiently detailed and gave staff good information about how to support people in the home in a person centred way. These were regularly reviewed.

People confirmed there were daily activities available. People enjoyed a range of activities and on the day of our visit they were preparing for an Italian themed evening.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and this included gaining feedback from people receiving support.

People told us that they felt safe and well looked after. One person told us “I would suggest it to anybody”

We found that up to date records about training and health and safety checks were not easily accessible to the manager and some care records were not fully completed to ensure staff had accurate information.

8th January 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with six people who use the service, four relatives and five members of staff including the registered manager.

People told us that the staff treated them with respect and spoke to them in a polite and appropriate manner. People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected.

Care plans included personal information to enable staff to support people in a person centred way. This included life histories, important relationships and people’s cultural and religious beliefs. In addition, care plans included information where the person was independent and where they required support.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support that was in place. One person said “the staff cannot do enough for me and I only have to ring my call bell and their respond very quickly”. One relative told us “I feel very confident that my husband is well cared for and I have no concerns about the care and support that is being provided”.

People confirmed there were daily activities available. This included daily activities organised by the activity co-ordinator and external entertainers.

People we spoke with told us that the home was regularly cleaned and they had no concerns in relation to cleanliness.

24th February 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People who spoke with us were able to discuss their life at the home and what they

enjoyed about living there.

People said that they appreciate having their own rooms, and being able to bring their own personal items. One person told us "I like having my own things in my room

People told us that they liked living at the home. One person said "It's a decent home. I would rather be in my own home but here is fine for me"

People told us that they made decisions about what they did during the evening. One

person told us "I know there are activities going on but I don't bother with them I like my own company. The girls tell me about them. There seems to be a lot going on "

Four people who use the service told us that they felt safe at the home and that staff are” just lovely If they don't have time to talk to you then they make time.".

People told us that the food was "very nice” and that there was plenty to eat at times that suited them. One person said "if I don't like something then they make me something else. The lunches are lovely".

People told us that there was assistance for them to maintain their personal hygiene if

required and that their privacy and dignity was respected. One person said "I can always have a quiet chat with the staff. We can go to my room or I talk to them in the office".

We saw that the manager did not monitor and analysed the contents of the questionnaires, the levels of accidents, incidents and complaints. The manager told us that this was an area she was going to develop.

 

 

Latest Additions: