Chilmington House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received individualised care and support from staff who knew them well. Support plans were detailed and person‑centred, outlining people’s strengths as well as the support required from staff and other services. Plans were regularly reviewed and tailored to reflect each person’s unique needs and preferences. This enabled staff to support people in the way they wished and to help them lead full and active lives.

One professional said, “They are particularly good at person-centred care, for example buying sensory objects which a particular client engages with.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care from a range of appropriate health professionals to meet their individual needs and were supported to attend appointments as required. Support plans identified who was involved in each person’s care and provided guidance on how and when these professionals should be consulted. The registered manager had effective processes in place for making referrals and working collaboratively with other agencies, which helped to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to care.

However, 1 person, who had expressed a wish to move to a more independent living environment for the last 12 years, had not had any updates on this request, and had not been encouraged or helped to learn some basic skills needed for living a more independent life. This meant, that even if accommodation became available for them, they would not have the skills to cope.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication and information needs were assessed on admission and recorded within their care plans. People and their relatives, where appropriate, had access to their care plans. Staff were trained and aware of GDPR (Data protection) principles.

This approach helped to ensure people’s communication needs were known and met in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a framework, making it a legal requirement for all providers to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand the information they are given.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People had regular opportunities to speak to the registered manager and team leader and felt listened to and involved in making decisions about the care and support provided at Chilmington House.People told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns they might have with the managers and staff and were confident their views would be taken seriously.

The provider’s complaints procedure was freely available, and the home maintained a record of any complaints received.

There was a suggestion box by the front door. However, there was no evidence of any action plans following feedback from people, staff or relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider was aware of inequalities people receiving care may face. There were systems in place to seek people’s experiences on the care they received, and we were told any concerns identified would be acted on by the provider. The provider made referrals to other health professionals when appropriate.

The premises were accessible to all and care was provided supporting peoples’ needs and preferences. There was also an emergency protocol in place.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager made timely referrals to external health and social care professionals to support individuals in accessing the right care and support when needed. The service was flexible and adaptable in supporting people to achieve positive outcomes.

The provider told us care was planned in consultation with people. Care staff told us they received training in equality and diversity and were aware of the diverse types of discrimination or inequalities that people using the service may face and would report any concerns to the deputy care manager for advice and support.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was a lack of recorded future planning, such as people's individual goals and aspirations. This meant care plans did not fully reflect what people wanted to achieve or how staff could support them to work towards these outcomes. Without this information, there was a risk that opportunities to promote personal development, independence and meaningful activity could be overlooked.

People’s end of life needs had not been discussed with them or their relatives. The registered manager told us this was a sensitive subject and, due to the age some of the people using the service, they did not feel it was required. They were, however, aware of the importance of assessing these needs for others and recognised that advance planning was a key part of person‑centred care. Without these discussions, there was a risk that people’s wishes and preferences would not be known or recorded should their circumstances change unexpectedly.