Chilton Meadows Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A high percentage of staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. A person said, “Staff are very nice, help me in and out of bed, they are brilliant at listening.” However, many people experienced a different quality of care and support dependent on the unit they lived on. We received lots of feedback about a shortage of staff impacting the care people received across all units. A staff member told us, “What we are not able to do - and most carers would like to - is sit down and talk to someone in distress or spend time with a [person living with dementia] who wants to go home and see their mum and dad who they are sure will be worried about them. That is the job that we signed up for but are not given the time to do it. We simply can’t sit and talk to anyone because we are constantly trying to beat the clock.”

We observed mixed interactions between staff and people who used the service. We observed some staff spoke fondly of people, for example, a staff member said,“It is like my little family here.” However, we observed other staff who rarely communicated with people, for example, when supporting them with eating their meal.

Some people had additional 1:1 staff support in place due to their specific care needs. We observed staff undertaking the 1:1 role. Staff did not always take the opportunity to engage with the person they were supporting. For example, one person became distressed and tried to pull a tablecloth off the table. The member of staff providing the 1:1 support moved the person, in their wheelchair in front of the TV with no communication or interaction. They then moved the person away from the TV again with no communication. The registered manager told us this was not the person’s regular 1:1 carer. Despite this there was no guidance and oversight to ensure standards of care were consistently maintained everyday regardless of the staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff were task-oriented, leaving little time for them to personalise care for people. Some care records were very brief and lacked person centred individualised information in them to guide staff on how to provide person centred care. For example, we observed a person was presenting as anxious and walking with purpose for long periods repeatedly throughout the day. There was little engagement seen by the staff team offering distraction techniques to alleviate the persons anxiety and distress.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There were inconsistencies in the different units. Whilst, in 2 of the unit’s Constable and Gainsborough people were supported to maintain their independence and their choices were respected. In the other 2 units, Beech and Munnings, this was not the case. Particularly on Beech Unit, people were encouraged and requested to frequently sit down and not to go into the secure garden area despite them clearly communicating a wish to do so. The provider failed to ensure each unit consistently promoted people’s independence and choice.

However, people and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and promoted their independence where possible. One person said,“Staff wash my back, I do my arms face and front, we have this every day.”

Relatives told us they were free to visit at any time and were always made to feel welcome. Most people participated in and enjoyed a range of activities; however, relatives told us they had expected more external activities as advised before admission. Relatives told us they were free to visit at any time and were always made to feel welcome. Most people participated in and enjoyed a range of activities; however, relatives told us they had expected more external activities as advised before admission. An activities staff member told us they did not have enough resources; however, the provider was in the process of recruiting more activities staff. Following our inspection visit, the provider sent us a list of the range of external activities offered such as music memories at a community centre, bowls at the local leisure centre as well as trips out such as the pantomime every year on the Suffolk coast. The provider also told us of the visiting entertainment that came to the service such as a Dementia Alliance singing group and entertainers.

We observed people been offered choice in some areas such as whether to have tea or coffee to drink, however, staff interactions were basic and lacked effective communication.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.