You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

This inspection took place on 12 June 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection we found two breaches of the regulations and the service was rated as requires improvement in safe and well-led. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when, to improve the key questions of safe and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found there had been improvements to the quality of care provided, and the service is now rated as good. The service was no longer in breach of legal requirements.

The Chase Rest Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. People had care needs relating to their mental health, dementia or older age.

The Chase Rest Home can accommodate up to 24 people. There were 16 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. Each person had their own private room with toilet and sink, and there were shared bathroom facilities.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

As far as possible, people were protected from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was a risk. The home was clean, and people were protected from the risks of poor infection and prevention control.

There were enough staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs. Staff knew how to report incidents and accidents, and if these did occur, they were properly investigated. Information about these types of incidents were shared, so staff could learn from mistakes. Risk assessment and risk management practices were robust.

People were supported to eat and drink enough, and specialist dietary needs were met. People gave us positive feedback about the quality of the food. People were able to access the healthcare they needed to remain well and their medicines were safely managed.

People were supported to express their choices and preferences and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible. People led the lives they wanted to and were able to maintain contact with those people that were important to them. People were able to participate in a range of activities, and go out when they wanted to.

People experienced care that met their needs, and were supported by kind, caring staff. People had their privacy and dignity respected, and staff knew what to do to make sure people’s independence was promoted. People experienced person centred care and were supported to make their end of life care wishes known.

People had their care needs regularly assessed, and people were involved in their care reviews. People experienced care and support that was in line with current guidance and standards. Staff made sure they worked within the organisation and with others, to make sure people received effective care. The building and environment was properly adapted to meets the needs of the people who lived there.

Staff were properly supported with training, supervision and appraisals to make sure they had the skills they needed to provide good quality care. Specialist training had been arranged where needed, for example dementia care.

People were asked for their consent before any care was given, and staff made sure they always acted in people’s best interests. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety or unable to make informed choices about their care.

People had access to a complaints process, and said they would be happy to raise a complaint if they ever needed to. There had been no recent formal complaints, but the registered manager and staff knew what action to take if a complaint were made.

The service was well-led and staff felt supported. People’s views were sought and acted on to improve the service. Regular checks and audits were carried out to make sure people experienced good quality care and staff provided good support. The registered manager had notified the CQC of events that were reportable. The service had met all the fundamental standards and the registered manager and staff had improved the service so it was now good. Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risks of harm, abuse or discrimination. Risk assessments and risk management plans were in place and helped to keep people safe.

people’s medicines were safely managed and there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Appropriate checks were completed to ensure suitable staff were employed to work at the service.

The environment and equipment was safely maintained and infection control practices were safe. The service learned from mistakes and made improvements where necessary.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff that had received training and had the skills to meet their needs.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met, and food was homemade and nutritious.

Staff asked for people’s consent before providing care and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s health and well-being needs were met. People were supported to have access to healthcare services when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People were treated in a kind and compassionate way.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their independence was promoted.

People were supported to make their own decisions and choices throughout the day.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans provided staff with information about their preferences and support needs and people were involved in planning their own care.

People were asked for their feedback about the service and this was acted on. There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints and concerns raised had been investigated and action taken to put things right.

People were properly supported with end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was well-led.

There was clear leadership and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered aimed to learn continuously and supported the staff to do so.

Systems and processes for monitoring quality had been improved and were effective in driving improvements. People and staff were engaged and involved in the running of the service.