We carried out a review of the data available to us about Chantry Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Chantry Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Chantry Court is a 'retirement village' for older people which has a service to provide people with personal care when their needs for help increase. People could also choose a different provider to support them with personal care. At the time of the inspection 27 people were receiving personal care.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
People had their own flat with a front door they could lock. There were communal spaces such as a cinema, dining room and lounge area. There was also at least one member of staff available 24-hours a day to support people with any needs they had.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe living at Chantry Court. The provider had taken action to keep people safe and manage the risks they faced.
Staff had a good understanding of the support people needed. Staff were supporting people to do as much for themselves as possible.
People were supported to take any medicines safely and staff sought advice from health and social care services when necessary.
The provider had made changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and there were good infection prevention and control measures in place.
Staff received regular training and support. People felt staff had the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to maintain a good diet and access the health services they needed.
The provider had established good systems to monitor the quality of service provided and make improvements where needed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 January 2020). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 13 November 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve safe care and treatment.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Effective and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Chantry Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Chantry Court is a retirement village for older people which has a service to provide people with personal care when their needs for help increase. People could also choose a different provider to support them with personal care. At the time of the inspection 32 people were receiving personal care.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
Each person or couple living at the retirement village had their own flat with a locked front door. There were communal spaces such as a cinema, dining room and lounge area. There was also at least one member of staff awake 24-hours a day to support people with any needs.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe and cared for living at the service. However, improvements were required in several areas. This included medicine management; assessing and mitigating risks; staff recruitment; staff training; and care plans containing up to date information.
Systems to audit the quality and safety of care had not been completed regularly since the middle of 2018 by the management. There was some confusion about the current structure of management from staff spoken with and during the inspection. Although, the provider had started to identify there were issues prior to the inspection by employing a quality improvement member of staff to implement changes.
People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, they were not always being followed. We have made a recommendation about how this could further be improved.
People and staff had mixed opinions about whether there were enough staff. No impact was found to people by current staffing levels and people’s calls were on time. During the inspection we saw systems were in place at the village to reduce social isolation.
Staff were kind and caring throughout the inspection. Only positive interactions between people and staff were witnessed. Staff clearly knew the people living in the village well. Staff respected privacy and dignity throughout the inspection.
Links had been developed with other health and social care professionals and plans to continue this were shared. The current management clearly wanted to make improvements and were open during the inspection to how this could be achieved.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 9 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We have identified breaches in relation to medicine management, risk assessments, staff training, staff recruitment and management systems at this inspection.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This visit to the service took place on 18 May 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered manager short notice of the inspection the day before the visit. We wanted to make sure the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support our inspection.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People received good support to manage any medicines they needed assistance with. There was clear information in care plans about the support people needed and how it should be provided.
There were clear records to show people consented to the care and treatment they were receiving. If people did not have capacity to consent to their care, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act had been followed. People told us staff always obtained their consent before providing any care or doing anything in their apartment.
The registered manager had improved the quality assurance systems in place at the service and made sure they were used effectively. There was a clear record of any shortfalls the quality assurance process identified and the action that was being taken to address any issues.
People who use the service were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff. People told us they felt safe when care staff visited them. Comments from people included, “I feel safe with the carers. They do everything that’s in my care plan – no problem” and “Staff are very good and do all that I ask of them”.
Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. People said the staff generally arrived on time, and they would receive a call to inform them if there were any problems.
Staff received a thorough induction when they started working for the service and demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.
People had opportunities to provide feedback about their care and there was a complaints procedure. People were confident any concerns would be listed to and addressed by the registered manager.
This visit to the service took place on 21 March 2016 and was unannounced. We returned on 31 March 2016 to complete the inspection.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The systems in place to manage risks related to the administration of medicines were not completed consistently. Information on how to provide support to people with their medicines was not always available and staff had not received training in administering some medicines.
One person had fallen whilst receiving care. There was no record of any checks being completed to assess whether their head injury required further medical assessment or whether action was needed to minimise the risk of further injury.
The provider’s systems for gaining and recording consent for care and treatment were not always followed by staff. This meant it was not possible to say whether some people consented to the care and treatment they were receiving, or if they did not have capacity to consent to their care that requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed.
Some of the information in people’s care plans was vague and did not provide clear information about people needs and the care staff should provide. Despite some of the vague information recorded in the care plans, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. Staff were consistent in their descriptions of the care people needed and how some people’s needs varied.
The quality assurance systems in place at the service were not always used effectively. Audits had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection or effectively planned how improvements to the service were going to be made.
People who use the service and their relatives were positive about the care they received and praised the quality of the staff. People told us they felt safe when care staff visited them. The relative we spoke with said they were happy with the service provided and didn’t have any concerns about the safety of their family member.
Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. People said the care workers generally arrived on time, and they would receive a call to inform them if there were any problems.
Staff received a thorough induction when they started working for the service and demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs. However, training was needed for some staff to enable them to support one person with their medicines.
People had opportunities to provide feedback about their care and there was a complaints procedure. People were confident cony concerns would be listed to and addressed by the registered manager.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Everyone we spoke with was complimentary of the staff and were satisfied with the care and support provided. Comments included: 'staff are very kind and caring.' Another person explained they received personal care by a member of staff of the same gender, which they said 'is important to me.'
We found the management of people's medicines was well organised and staff were
trained effectively to carry this out safely.
We found effective recruitment practices were in place to assure staff employed
were able to work with people safely and effectively. One person told us "I receive support from staff who know me very well. When a new member of staff is employed, they are always introduced to me first. Then they are shadowed until they know what is expected of them.'
Everyone we spoke with confirmed they were very happy with the service Chantry Court provided. Although one person told us they had not received their usual call as they had expected the previous day. They had chosen not report this to anyone. We informed the registered manager who told us they would investigate the matter.
The agency had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of its service and showed examples of improvements they had made to service delivery in response to comments received from people who used the service.
During our inspection we spoke with three people who use the service, three relatives and one of the two staff employed to provide personal care.
Everyone we spoke was complimentary of the staff and were satisfied with the care and support provided.
Comments included: 'The small staff team are extremely caring and experienced and know me very well.' Another said 'staff are very aware of the importance of privacy and dignity, they are polite and respectful. The staff know me and my routine, which I value.' A person told us 'the staff are very flexible and ensure their visits fit in with me to meet my individual needs.'
A relative told us 'the staff are well trained and are thorough in the support they provide. My relative has specialist equipment such as a hoist which they don't need at the moment. Two staff help with transferring from one area to another.'
We were told the staff had received training but the registered manager was not able to show us any evidence of training staff had received.
A relative told us 'I have plenty of opportunities to express my views regarding the care or treatment my relative receives.'
People told us they would speak to any of the staff if they had any concerns. In doing so, they were confident any concerns would be dealt with promptly and effectively.