• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Chaseview Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Off Dagenham Road, Rush Green, Romford, Essex, RM7 0XY (020) 8517 1436

Provided and run by:
Bupa Care Homes (CFHCare) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

9 February 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Chaseview is a residential and nursing home which provides nursing and personal care for up to 120 older people. The home is divided into four separate units each with its own manager. At the time of this inspection there were 109 people using the service. This included people with dementia and people who were at the home for respite.

We last inspected the home on 11, 12, 14 and 15 May 2015. We carried out this unannounced focussed inspection on 9 February 2016 due to concerns raised by the local authority around the safety and effectiveness of the service provided. This inspection was carried out to check there were adequate numbers of nurses employed, appropriate building maintenance systems were in place, people were offered adequate amounts of food and drink to meet nutritional and hydration needs and the provider was working with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

There was a registered manager at this home. 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 this inspection, we found there was enough nursing staff employed and the provider was in the process of recruiting a nurse to fill the vacancy they had. The home had systems in place to maintain the environment and there were plans to carry out a full refurbishment of the bathrooms this year. People had risk assessments carried out to minimise risks associated with their care. There were enough staff to care for people safely. The registered manager had a daily meeting with staff in the home to ensure they were kept up-to-date with any concerns.

We found that staff had received relevant training and provided the service to people within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). There were systems in place to ensure people who were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were monitored and staff had received training in nutrition and hydration. Records showed that people had access to healthcare professionals as required.

11, 12, 14, 15 May 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 11, 12, 14 and 15 May 2015.

We last inspected the home on 4, 5, 7 and 14 August 2014. During this inspection we found breaches of two regulations. People were not protected against unsafe medicines management because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place for handling, using, dispensing and disposal of medicines. The provider had also not always ensured that people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

Chaseview is a residential and nursing home which provides nursing and personal care for up to 120 older people. At the time of this inspection there were 90 people using the service. This included people with dementia and people who were at the home for a short stay. The home is divided into four separate units each with its own manager.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager at this home. 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.’ The previous registered manager had left employment in January 2015. A new manager had been recruited and was due to start employment in June 2015. The new manager submitted their application forms to become registered the week following our inspection.

We found people consistently received their medicines safely and as prescribed. We recommend the provider’s medicines administration policies and procedures should be revised to reflect current practice. There were systems to check and maintain the safety and suitability of equipment and the premises and these were up-to-date. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures relating to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Safe recruitment checks were carried out and there were adequate numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. People had an assessment of their needs and risk assessments were carried out to ensure safe treatment and care was provided.

People were able to make requests for a meal of their choice if they did not like what was on the menu. Staff knew the people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure a personalised service was provided. There was a variety of individual and group activities to ensure people had their social and emotional needs met. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and enabled people to maintain their independence. People had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their day-to-day health needs.

Staff received regular training and opportunities for skill development. The manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities around legislation regarding people’s mental capacity. Staff described how they sought people’s consent before delivering care.

People knew how to make a complaint and these were dealt with appropriately. Staff felt comfortable raising concerns with the managers. The provider had systems to check the quality of the service provided. People and their representatives were able to give feedback through satisfaction surveys, the results of which were acted upon to improve the service. Staff received regular supervisions to ensure good quality care was provided and attended regular staff meetings to receive updates on the service.

4, 5, 7, 14 August 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by three inspectors and we were supported by an expert by experience. We carried out this inspection because we had received concerns that people's safety and welfare needs were not being met. During our visit there were 98 people using the service.

We considered our inspection findings to answer 5 key questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Is the service safe?

Staff were up to date with their health and safety training including fire safety and food hygiene. We found that some staff needed refresher training in moving and handling and were booked onto courses for this during August 2014. However we found there were a number of issues with medicines management which included unclear administration guidelines. We found from an audit check conducted by the contractor on 27/09/2013 and by the home on 28/07/2014 that some bed rail bumpers posed a health and safety risk because they were not using the correct types.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and reviewed every month. Staff we spoke with understood what people's care needs were. Staff had received training in nutrition and hydration which meant they were qualified to support people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration and this training was up to date. Records were kept of fluid and food intake for people who were at risk of dehydration and malnutrition. People were given choices of food to eat and could choose an alternative not listed on the menu, if they preferred. A family member told us that her relative 'was receiving excellent care here.'

Is the service caring?

Staff were observed to speak to people in a kind and caring way. For example, we observed one member of staff serving a person a meal and asking if they would like their fish cut up today or if they felt able to manage. We spoke with people and family members who generally thought staff were caring. Their comments included, 'staff are caring and kind', 'staff are good, they care for me' and 'very good care.' We observed staff chatting to people and being attentive to their needs.

Is the service responsive?

One family member told us their relative was 'settled and happy, well looked after' and 'when she was poorly they sent her to hospital.' We spoke with the GP who told us he thought the service was responsive and he 'felt confident that anything that arose would be addressed.' One person told us 'If I'm not happy about something I tell the staff and they reply quickly.' Staff we spoke with were able to tell us what they would do if they found a piece of equipment was faulty or not working.

Is the service well-led?

There were several quality assurance systems in place including staff meetings and head of department meetings. The provider had a system to collect the views of people who use the service and the views of family members through a quality assurance survey. We saw evidence that the provider collated the responses and used these to improve the service.

19, 22 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with gave positive feedback about their experience of the service. They told us that staff were able to meet their care needs. We saw staff interacting with people in a respectful manner. One person said 'it's wonderful here'. A relative told us "the staff are alright, some are lovely." We found risk assessments and care plans were in place which set out how to meet people's individual needs and records showed that people had regular access to other health care professionals.

We found that people were supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration. They were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and reduce the risk of abuse from happening. Adequate systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

14 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect, and that they were able to make choices over their daily lives. Comments included "staff will help me if I want to go outside" and "I choose when I go to bed." We saw that staff interacted with people in a polite and respectful manner. Most people we spoke with told us the service was able to meet their needs. One person said "they give me help to get out of bed. They are pretty good with me." We found that care plans and risk assessments were in place, for instance on mobility, personal care and skin integrity. Records showed people had access to health care professionals, such as GP's and tissue viability nurses.

We found that medications were stored securely, and we observed them been administered in line with the services procedures. We had some concerns with the recording of as required (PRN) medications. People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person said 'there's always someone here when you need them.' We observed staff to have time to carry out their duties, and to be ale to meet people's needs. People told us they knew how to make a complaint, and we found the service had a complaints procedure in place.

18 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People told us that staff were very helpful and they were consulted about how their care was delivered. People told us that they felt confident about informing the registered manager or another senior member of staff if they had any concerns.

5 August 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

Some people were unable to tell us their experiences, due to their health care needs. During this inspection we carried out a short observation exercise to help us make judgements about their welfare. Overall, the people we spoke to and their relatives commented positively about living at Chaseview. Most people told us they liked the staff and the food provided.