You are here

Archived: Chaseley Bungalows

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 February 2014
Date of Publication: 27 February 2014
Inspection Report published 27 February 2014 PDF | 67.09 KB

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills (outcome 14)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 4 February 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider, reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities.

Our judgement

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Reasons for our judgement

We carried out an inspection in September 2013 where we found that the provider had not ensured that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely.

The provider sent us an action plan that informed us the home had made changes that ensured these issues had been addressed. Evidence gathered at this inspection showed the provider had achieved compliance.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We saw that staff had been provided with support and information to ensure that care could be provided to an appropriate standard. The acting clinical lead and one other senior staff member had attended deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) training.

Staff meetings had taken place. We saw minutes from the previous meeting, and saw that a meeting had been arranged for the day after our inspection.

A staff supervision plan was in place. The acting clinical lead told us that supervision and annual appraisals were commencing this month. Supervision records seen included supervision for agency staff who were working at the home for an extended period of time. Supervision dates showed that supervision was on-going, this ensured that all staff including agency staff were supported by the acting clinical lead.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported, and would feel happy raising any concerns if they arose. An agency RN told us, "staff are really supportive, we all work together" a further member of care staff told us, "It is nice to work here, everyone is supportive, everyone is really nice."

The interim manager who had only taken over this post in the week prior to our inspection, told us that they would be providing regular supervision for senior staff, and this would be implemented shortly.