Archived: Chasefield House

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

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

We looked at systems in place to manage medicines and found that they were safe. Medicines were stored and administered safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to external health care professionals when required.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Support provided to people met their needs. Care plans provided information about what was important to people and how to support them. People were involved in activities of their choice.

Risks to people were assessed and where required a risk management plan was in place to support people manage an identified risk and keep the person safe.

We looked at staff recruitment files and found the provider had a safe and effective system in place for employing new staff. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely. Staff completed training to ensure they were suitably skilled to perform their role. Staff were supported through a supervision programme

Staff were caring towards people and there was a good relationship between people and staff. Staff demonstrated and in-depth understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they cared for.

There were systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. Comments from people and compliments received by the provider confirmed that people were happy with the service and the support received.

People were supported to access the community and staff ensured people had the opportunity to take part in activities they enjoyed. Professionals we spoke with were positive about how the home supported people and liaised with other services.

The home was clean and smelt fresh throughout. The premises were in need of maintenance but the staff had made efforts to make the building as homely as possible.

Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out before new members of staff were employed and the home had an effective system to monitor the quality of the service. The home was proactive in supporting people to complain and dealt with complaints effectively.