You are here

Chandos Lodge Nursing Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 July 2011
Date of Publication: 26 September 2011
Inspection Report published 26 September 2011 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Whilst there were systems in place to monitor the service, there was no clear documented process to show how the results had been acted upon, by whom and when. It was therefore unclear how the outcomes of these audits were used to improve or develop the service.

Overall, we found Chandos Lodge Nursing Home was meeting this essential standard but, to maintain this, we have suggested that some improvements are made.

User experience

We did not speak to people about this outcome area.

Other evidence

The home had some systems in place to monitor the quality of service that people received. People’s views were sought both on an informal and formal basis, through talking to people on a daily basis, during their reviews of care and through the use of quarterly surveys. A comments box was available in the home for people to make any comments and a communications book was in people’s rooms for them or their visitors to document any comments about their care and support if they wished. We saw that surveys had been sent out to family members in June 2011 for them to complete with their relatives. Five had been returned, all of which gave positive feedback on the care provided and the staff who delivered the care and support.

We saw documentation of monthly visits undertaken by one of the proprietors, who does not have a constant presence in the home. The purposes of the visits were to assess the care and services provided and where any improvements could be made. The visits included talking to people using the service, staff members and generally observing the environment for any maintenance issues that needed attending to.

Whilst there were systems in place to monitor the service, there was no clear documented process or action plan to show how the results had been acted upon, by whom and when. It was therefore unclear how the outcomes of these processes were used to improve or develop the service.