Archived: Chimera Rest Home

Updated 25 February 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 17 and 19 August 2016. Two inspectors visited the service on both days of the inspection.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

As part of the inspection we spoke with five people who lived at the home and met and spoke briefly with two other people. We looked at three people’s care, treatment and support records in full, and sampled specific care records for most of the people who lived at the home. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service including staffing rotas, staff recruitment, appraisal and training records, accident and incident records, premises maintenance records, staff meeting minutes and medicine administration records.

We spoke with the provider and also talked with four other members of the staff team.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. We also looked at information about incidents the provider had notified us of, and requested information from the local authority.

Updated 25 February 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 17 and 19 August 2016. Two inspectors visited the service on both days of the inspection.

Chimera is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to seven people. On the first day of the inspection the provider told us that six people lived at the home. On the second day of the inspection the provider told us that one person who lived at the home as a lodger had become a resident during the inspection.

At the last inspection we found that people were not safely supported because care was not planned in a way that met peoples’ needs or provided in a safe way, medicines were not safely managed, recruitment was not robust and there were not effective governance systems in place.

At this inspection we found three repeated breaches of the regulations and four new breaches of the regulations.

In particular, we identified the delivery of care posed risks to people, the management and administration of medicines was not consistently safe and recruitment checks were not always completed in accordance with current legislation.

Staff told us they were supported but training records showed some staff had not received adequate training to make sure people’s needs were met. In addition staff were not working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and whilst people had been supported to see their GP, nobody living at the home had seen a dentist.

People told us staff were caring and friendly and a member of staff said, “The residents are looked after really well”. Another member of staff told us, “The care is really good here”.

People told us that staff responded to their requests for support promptly. People’s needs had been assessed and there were care plans in place to meet their needs, however, there was limited evidence that people were supported to engage in meaningful activities.

The governance systems in place did not ensure people’s needs were safely and effectively met.

CQC is now considering the appropriate regulatory response to the shortfalls we found. Where providers are not meeting the fundamental standards, we have a range of enforcement powers we can use to protect the health, safety and welfare of people who use this service (and others, where appropriate). When we propose to take enforcement action, our decision is open to challenge by the provider through a variety of internal and external appeal processes. We will publish a further report on any action we take.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Requires improvement’. However, we are placing the service in 'special measures'. We do this when services have been rated as 'Inadequate' in any key question over two consecutive comprehensive inspections. The ‘Inadequate’ rating does not need to be in the same question at each of these inspections for us to place services in special measures.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.