You are here

Charton Manor Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2019

About the service

The Christian Science residential nursing home and the Visiting Christian Science Nursing Services, London Field (domiciliary service) are run as a charitable trust. Both are located at Charton Manor.

The Christian Science residential nursing home provides residential and respite accommodation and personal care for up to 19 people. At the time we inspected, seven people were using the service. They choose to receive care based on their religious convictions, which were consistent with the theology and ethics of the Christian Science Church.

Visiting Christian Science Nursing Services, London Field (domiciliary care) is based in an office on the first floor of Charton Manor. There were 16 people using the domiciliary care service when we inspected. The service only provides care based on Christian Science teachings, such as, assistance with mobility, assistance with meal preparation, wound dressing and companionship to people living in their own homes. Visiting Christian Science Nursing Services, London Field (domiciliary care) does not administer medicines, or medicated, herbal, or vitamin-based products and remedies.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were positive in their feedback. Comments included; “The nurses look after us suitably”; “Marvellous” and “Oh yes, they are very good.”

However, the registered manager for Visiting Christian Science Nursing Services, London Field (domiciliary care) had not carried out appropriate risk assessments before people started using the service. There were no environmental risk assessments or care related risk assessments for people receiving domiciliary care. This meant that the service had not mitigated possible and potential risks to people who received care and support.

Accidents and incidents, for people living in the residential nursing home had been recorded in care plans and monitored by the registered manager to try to prevent similar incidents being repeated. However, we found no records of any incidents or accidents for people receiving support from the Christian Science visiting nursing service. We have made a recommendation about this.

Visiting Christian Science Nursing Services, London Field (domiciliary care) did not have adequate processes in place to audit and monitor the delivery of the service. However, the residential nursing home had a robust quality audit system in place which allowed the registered manager to have an oversight on the service.

People were protected from abuse. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.

People who lived in the residential nursing home received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services. Each person had an up to date care plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly.

People continued to receive care from staff who were well supported with induction and training. Staff received the training and updates they required to successfully carry out their role.

Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s choices and provided the support people required while assisting and maintaining independence. This enabled people to achieve positive outcomes and promoted a good quality of life.

The staff were caring and knew people, their preferences, likes and dislikes well. We received good feedback from people and relatives about the quality of care provided by staff.

We observed people’s rights, their dignity and privacy were respected. People continued to be supported to maintain a balanced diet and staff monitored their nutritional health.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 September 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.