You are here

Archived: Charles House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 May 2017

The inspection took place on 14 and 15 November 2016 and was announced to ensure the people we needed to speak with were available. Charles House provides a care service to people in their own homes. It is registered to provide personal care to older people, people living with dementia, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, people with a sensory impairment or mental health condition, younger adults and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection they were providing the regulated activity of personal care to 87 people. The provider’s office is located in Petersfield and care is provided to people living in the surrounding areas of Hampshire.

The service had 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. At the time of our inspection the registered manager was no longer actively fulfilling this role. The management of the service was carried out by the provider’s senior management team whilst they recruited for a new registered manager.

People told us they felt safe from abuse or harm from their care workers and they were supported safely by care staff. Staff had completed training in safeguarding children and adults from abuse and appropriate actions had been taken when concerns about people’s safety had been raised.

Staff we spoke with understood the risks that people experienced and took the appropriate actions to ensure people received safe and appropriate care. The provider had introduced an electronic care planning system PASS which enabled them to monitor risks to people when care was not delivered as planned. People were supported safely.

The provider had experienced some key office administration and management staff changes which had resulted in the day to day management of the service being overseen by the provider’s senior management team. This was to support the new office team through an induction into their roles. At the time of our inspection care supervisors and care coordinators were also providing personal care to people to ensure people’s care needs were met. There had been some disruption to the service people received however, this was improving as new care staff were recruited and office staff completed their induction. People told us that care staff were usually on time and stayed for the time agreed. Although people did not always experience the consistency of staff they would prefer; people did not report any harm as a result of these changes and had not reported any missed calls. Overall there were sufficient suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely by appropriately trained staff and the provider monitored the administration of people’s medicines through their PASS system. This enabled them to check people had received their prescribed medicines at the time they required them.

People were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff because the provider carried out the relevant checks to ensure staff were recruited safely.

Staff completed an induction and on-going training in their role to enable them to care for people safely and effectively. Regular supervision was provided to staff so they were supported in their role.

People told us staff supported them to be as independent as they were able to be. People’s legal rights were upheld because the provider’s staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were asked for their consent to their care plan and where appropriate the provider sought confirmation of the legal authority other people held to make decisions on behalf of a person. This is important to ensure people were protected from inappropr

Inspection areas



Updated 9 May 2017

The service was safe

People were protected from the risk of abuse, because staff understood how to identify, report and address safeguarding concerns. Concerns about people�s safety were acted on.

Risks affecting people were managed safely through a process of assessment and risk management.

Overall there were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people�s needs. Safe recruitment processes protected protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff.

People�s medicines were managed safely.



Updated 9 May 2017

The service was effective

People were supported by staff who completed training to meet people�s individual needs and to carry out their role effectively.

People were supported by staff who promoted people�s independence. People were asked for their consent to their care and supported in their decision making in line with the mental Capacity Act 2005 to protect their legal rights.

People�s dietary needs and preferences were met. People were supported to maintain their health and access healthcare as required.



Updated 9 May 2017

The service was caring

People were treated with kindness and compassion by caring staff.

People�s rights to privacy, dignity and choice were respected by staff.

People valued the positive relationships they had with the provider�s staff. Information about people�s lifestyle choices and preferences helped to inform staff about people�s interests and Important decisions.



Updated 9 May 2017

The service was responsive

People received care that was based on their needs and preferences. A care plan was in place to describe what staff needed to do to provide person centred care. People told us they were consulted about their care plans and their needs were reviewed on a regular basis.

Processes were in place and followed to ensure complaints were documented, investigated and responded to appropriately.



Updated 9 May 2017

The service was well led

People and their relatives told us they had confidence and trust in the provider.

The management team demonstrated an open, honest and positive culture and staff told us they felt valued by the provider.

Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor and assess the quality of care people received and to drive improvements.

The provider promoted an awareness of the needs of the people they supported through community engagement events, national campaigns and partnerships.