Archived: Chasefield House

Updated 3 January 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was undertaken on the 22, 23 October and the 6 November 2019. It was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type:

Chasefield House is a residential care home. People in residential care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service at the time of the inspection had a registered manager in post. This meant the provider was legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced on the first day.

What we did:

We reviewed information we had received about the service. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about. The provider had completed a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection we spoke with five people, one relative, four members of staff, as well as the registered manager and a member of staff from human resources. During the inspection we reviewed three people’s care and support records and two staff files.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such as incident and accident records, questionnaires, recruitment and training records, policies, audits and complaints.

Updated 3 January 2020

About the service: Chasefield House is a residential care home.

Chasefield House accommodates up to 11 people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection 10 people were living there.

The home met most of the characteristics that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

Chasefield House was registered to support up to Eleven people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design, fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size in the neighbourhood.

There were deliberately limiting identifying signs outside the home to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and staff could be at risk of hot water that posed a risk of scalding. Some people could be at risk of radiators being uncovered. No risk assessment was in place at the time of the inspection. No action had been taken prior to our inspection.

Medicines were administered safely to people. Records were accurate and up to date. People were supported by enough staff and by staff who had checks undertaken prior to working with vulnerable people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff received supervision and training and were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Staff and the registered manager knew people well. Care plans were personalised and individual and recorded people’s like, dislikes and routines.

The provider had a complaints policy in place including an easy read version. People who we spoke with were happy with the care they received. People had their views sought with ongoing conversation regarding their end of life wishes.

Staff felt supported and it was a nice place to work. Staff supported people to access medical appointments and health professionals when required. People access the community and undertook activities that were personal to them.

Incidents and accidents were recorded, and quality assurance systems were in place relating to infection control and medicines management.

Rating at last inspection: Good (published April 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. At this inspection we found the overall rating had changed from Good to Requires Improvement.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will visit the service in line with our inspection schedule, or sooner if required.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk