Archived: Chatham House

Updated 1 June 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 3 May 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the information in the PIR and also looked at other information we held about the service before the inspection visit.

During this inspection we spoke with eight people who lived at the home and one visitor, five members of staff and the registered provider. Throughout the day we observed care practices in communal areas and saw lunch being served in the dining room.

We looked at a number of records relating to individual care and the running of the home. These included three care plans, three staff personnel files, medication records and records of audits.

Updated 1 June 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 May 2016

Chatham House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to up to 26 people. The home specialises in the care of older people. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people living at the home.

The registered provider manages the service on a day to day basis. 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 last inspection was carried out on 9 April 2015. At that inspection we found improvements were needed. The recruitment practices needed to be more robust to ensure people were fully protected. We found that although new staff were interviewed, and limited checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, there was no information about their previous employment.

At the last inspection we also found that there were no effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service offered and plan ongoing improvements. There were no records of how people had been involved in planning their care or treatment and no evidence that they, or their representative, had been involved in reviewing their care plans.

At this inspection we found that all staff files had been audited and additional information had been sought. This meant the provider now had a full record for each person they employed.

A quality assurance system had been put in place to monitor the quality of care, seek people’s views and plan ongoing improvements to the service offered to people. There was a range of audits in place which helped to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

Action had been taken to address the issues raised at the last inspection but we found further improvements were still needed to make sure the systems in place identified all shortfalls and took timely action to address them. For example audits had not identified issues with care plans identified at the inspection. Whilst it is acknowledged that improvements had been made in the systems in place to monitor quality it was too early to establish the effects of this over a period of time. Although people were receiving the care they required, the lack of accurate records about people’s needs meant staff did not have clear guidelines to enable them to meet people’s needs. This could place them at risk of receiving care that did not meet their up to date needs.

People were cared for by a stable staff team who they were able to build relationships with. Staff were kind and people felt comfortable and relaxed with them. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and treated people with dignity and respect. People’s privacy was respected and they were able to choose where and how they spent their time.

Staff had received training which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. One person said “The girls are well trained. They know what they are doing.” Another person said “They [staff] know their stuff. We’re well looked after here.” People received their medicines safely from staff who had received specific training to enable them to carry out the task safely. There were sufficient numbers of staff to make sure people were not rushed and were able to maintain their independence.

Staff were well supported and told us they enjoyed their jobs. This created a happy and relaxed atmosphere for people to live in. One person told us “The nice thing is you can have a laugh with them.”

People were complimentary about the food served in the home. Comments included “Definitely plenty to eat” and “Always a good choice of food.” Where people required support or encouragement to eat this was provided.

People told us the management in the home was open and approachable and they would be able to raise any concerns or complaints with them. The provider was very visible in the home and people were very relaxed and comfortable with them.

We found one breach 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.