Archived: Chilton House

Chilton House is a residential care home, based in a privately owned 18th century Manor house, in the village of Chilton. Chilton House was providing personal and nursing care to 17 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 45 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service did not always comply with its regulatory responsibilities, we found that the service had failed to notify CQC of some reportable incidents.

We have made recommendations about the way the service manages accidents and incidents.

People were safe. There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding principles. Staff were recruited and trained safely and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The service was clean and maintained good infection control practices.

People’s health and care needs were assessed in line with national guidance and people were supported to access healthcare services when required. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, they told us they enjoyed meal times at the service and always had plenty of menu choices.

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.

Care was planned collaboratively with people who use the service and people were regularly consulted on future plans and development of the service. The service facilitated a wide range of activities and these were personalised to individuals’ hobbies and preferences.

People who use the service told us that staff were caring and treated them respectfully.

The service supported people at the end of their lives effectively and sensitively. The service tailored care provided to individuals religious, spiritual, cultural and personal differences.

The service was run by a registered manager whose staff described as supportive, approachable and ‘hands on’. Staff were supported by the registered manager to develop professionally.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.

Chilton House is a privately owned 18th century manor house situated in the village of Chilton. The home is registered to accommodate 45 older people to receive nursing or residential care. Alongside people who lived in the home permanently, the provider also accommodated people who required rehabilitation and convalescence or respite care. The house is surrounded by well-kept gardens with views over the Vale of Aylesbury. The home has a registered manager in place.

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.

Information in care plans and risk assessments were up to date and easy to access. We discussed with the registered manager how these could be more detailed and involve input from people. The registered manager had worked hard with staff to improve the layout and content of the care plans. They told us this was still work in progress.

People wore pendant alarms to enable them to summon help from staff. We found these were not working as effectively as they should. The registered manager was aware and was taking steps with the provider and the alarm company to ensure this was rectified as soon as possible.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely by trained staff. Where people chose to self-administer their medicines this was accommodated by staff.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff knew what people’s individual needs were, including their preferences. People spoke positively about their relationship with staff. We observed positive interactions and it was apparent, people enjoyed spending time with staff.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals. Training for staff was provided and kept up to date. New staff completed an induction and the Care Certificate.

People living in the home had the capacity to make their own decisions about how they were cared for and their preferred lifestyle. Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how this applied to their role. There were no DoLS in place at the time of our inspection. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for some people for some decisions to ensure people fully understood the decision they were making.

People spoke positively about the food provided in the home. The chef was aware of the dietary preferences and needs of the people living in the home.

People had access to health professionals to ensure they maintained their health. An in house physiotherapy service assisted people with rehabilitation and to maintain mobility.

Staff showed respect for people and preserved their dignity and privacy. People acknowledged this was the case and valued this aspect of their care. Staff were described as “Lovely” “Very caring” “Very attentive.” “Nice and helpful” and “Kind”. People told us they felt listened to by the staff and the registered manager. They had the opportunity to raise comments and ideas about the running of the home in the residents meeting. People told us this was a useful meeting. People knew how to raise complaints but told us they had not had to.

People joined in a variety of activities which they reported to us they enjoyed and visitors were made to feel very welcome.

The cultural needs of people had been taken into consideration and contact with the clergy was available for communion for those who wished to partake.

We were told by staff the morale of the team had improved since our last inspection. The staff worked well as a team and supported each other.

The registered manager had put systems in place to encourage and motivate staff and to recognise their contribution. Checks were made on the safety of the home and the quality of the service provided. The registered manager had an overview of the home and was working towards continuous improvement. Both staff and people in the home spoke positively about the registered manager and the senior staff.

All of the people we spoke with told us the food was of a very good quality and that there was always a good variety of meal options. We were able to see that there was a consistent variety and choice of nutritious meal options. We spoke with three care staff who told us that they supported people to be as independent as possible and supported them to work towards and achieve personal goals. We looked at four care files that demonstrated the personalised approach in place to support the staff's comments.

We observed staff treating people with respect and were able to see that there was a good relationship between staff and people who used the service. We observed staff assessing people's needs and ensuring that care was provided in line with individual care plans. We were able to see that people were comfortable and that there was adequate numbers of staff available to provide the individualised support needed.