You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 9 and 14 January 2019.

Charnley House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 29 and 30 November 2017. At that inspection we found the service to be in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This related to people being put at risk because they had been provided with foods that were not in keeping with their risk assessment and care plan. The service was given an overall rating of requires improvement.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to tell us what they intended to do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe and well led to at least good. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in all areas. We have made one recommendation relating to records of care provided.

Care records were detailed and person centred. They contained information based on people’s needs and wishes and were sufficiently detailed to guide staff in how to provide the support people required. Appropriate care was provided but records were not always kept up to date with action taken. We recommend the provider reviews their processes for recording decisions about care, how that care is provided and how they audit that information.

Charnley House is a large extended detached house situated in the Hyde area of Tameside. It provides care, support and accommodation for up to 40 people who require personal care without nursing. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people living at the home.

Individual and environmental risk assessments were person centred and gave staff guidance on how to minimise and manage identified risks. People’s dietary needs were identified and records reviewed showed that people were provided with suitably prepared food and drinks.

The service had policies to guide staff on health and safety and infection control. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out and equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately. We identified some remedial work that needed to be carried out on window restrictors and radiator covers. The work was completed immediately following our inspection.

Significant improvement was found with the systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. The new systems needed to be embedded and evidence of sustained improvement was required.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. People were positive about the register manager, who is also one of the providers.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and were able to demonstrate their understanding of the procedure to follow so that people were kept safe.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had received training in medicines administration and had their competency checked regularly.

There was a safe system of recruitment in place which helped protect people who used the service from unsuitable staff.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to carry out their roles effectively. Staff liked working for the service and told us they felt supported in their work.

People who used the service told us they were consulted about

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely. Risks to people were identified and guidance given to staff on how to minimise those risks.

People told us they felt safe because they were supported by staff they knew and trusted.

The recruitment of staff was safe and there were sufficient staff to provide the support people needed.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was effective.

People’s rights and choices were respected. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff had received the induction, training and supervision they required to ensure they were able to carry out their roles effectively.

People who used the service received appropriate support to ensure their health and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring and kind and that the atmosphere was ‘homely’.

The registered manager and staff had detailed knowledge of people and were able to tell us what was important to people, their likes and dislikes and the support they required.

Staff respected people's privacy and maintained their dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was responsive.

Care records were detailed and person centred. They contained information about people’s needs and wishes. They provided staff with the information they needed to support people appropriately.

A range of activities were available to help promote people health and wellbeing.

There was a complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was well-led.

Significant improvements were found with the systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. Evidence of continued sustained improvement and embedding of the new systems is now needed.

People who used the service and staff were positive about the registered manager.

Staff enjoyed working for the service. People who used the service were encouraged to give their views on the quality of service they received and how it could be improved.