You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Chapel House on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Chapel House, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 6 February 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Chapel House is a 'care home' supporting people that have experienced an acquired brain injury. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Chapel House consists of a residential care home supporting up to 18 people. They were supporting 14 people at the time of our inspection. They also support people living in their own home within the community through their domiciliary care service. There were eight people receiving support at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received safe and effective care from kind and caring staff. People had been fully involved in the assessment and planning of their care prior to being supported by the service and throughout the first 12 weeks. Care plans were comprehensive and regularly reviewed to ensure the most up-to-date information was available for staff. Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and had developed positive relationships with them.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and people were supported by staff that were trained and supported. Staff and the management team worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people were supported.

Risks to people had been identified and clear guidance was in place to ensure staff could mitigate these risks. People were included in the development and review of their risk assessments.

An infection control policy and procedure was in place to minimise the risk of infection being spread. Staff had all undergone training and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff supported people with activities of their choice. People had access to education and volunteering placements. People spoke positively about the activities they participated in. The provider had organised and invited people who use the service to social events to help prevent social isolation.

Medication was managed safely by trained and competent staff. Staff had access to a selection of medication policies and best practice guidance.

People are protected from the risk of abuse by staff that had received safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns they had. There was an up-to-date safeguarding policy available for staff to refer to.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and their independence was promoted. People spoke positively about the staff that supported them. People told us their views were regularly sought regarding their care, activities and suggestions for changes.

The registered provider complied with the principles the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff understood and respected people’s right to make their own decisions where possible, and encouraged people to make decisions about the care they received. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed in line with the MCA.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published April 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 2 March 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 1and 2 March 2016 and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide care and support care for up to18 adults who have an acquired brain injury. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living in Chapel House, with some people who required less support, living in flats at the service. The flats were to help people adjust and progress to a more independent lifestyle and prepare them to eventually live in the community.

There was a manager in post. An application to register as manager with the Care Quality Commission had been submitted. 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.

We saw that people’s care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place to meet those needs. People’s wishes and preferences were recorded in their care plans. Risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and risk assessments were in place. Staff understood how to keep people safe in line with their preferences.

We found there was an effective recruitment process in place, helping to ensure that suitable members of staff were recruited.

People who used the service told us they felt safe. Staff had attended safeguarding training and knew what action to take if they suspected people were put at risk of harm or injury.

Staff had completed training that enabled them to meet people’s needs effectively and the development needs of the staff were monitored by the management team.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored and people were supported to attend health appointments as required.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and promote their safety.

People who used the service told us that the staff treated them with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff listened to people and encouraged them to make choices and decisions about their care and support. Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support.

Some people who used the service were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

Inspection carried out on 2 October 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we had limited opportunity to speak with people receiving a service; this was because people were out in the community for most of the day, accessing activities and work placements. We did manage to briefly speak with three people living at the home. Some of the comments were, �It�s not a bad place to live�, �I love it here �and �I will be moving on soon. It�s been great here�.

Following our inspection we contacted three relatives of people who lived at Chapel House. Some of the comments were, �What impressed us from the start was that they (TRU) wanted to know what (name) was like as a person. The person is put at the centre of the support and care�, �We insist on being involved in (name) progress, care and support� and �Think the communication with families could be improved�.

We observed some interaction between support staff and people receiving a service to be positive, with staff being supportive, sensitive and encouraging in a non-patronising manner.

We looked the medication procedures, in order to assess if medicines were correctly and safely administered.

We carried out a tour of the home to assess if it was safe, hygienic and comfortable for the people living there and for the members of staff working there.

We looked at the care/support records for three people living at Chapel House and the staffing level rota lists for the previous two months. This was to determine if the home was adequately staffed,to meet people's needs.

Inspection carried out on 26 July 2012

During a routine inspection

"In general I feel I am respected by the staff",

"Sometimes staff used to walk into my room without knocking. I told the manager and it hasn't happened since,"

"I now have more confidence and feel ready to move on,"

"I have progressed quite a lot. I have a good primary coach,"

"I want to thank the people at TRU for giving me this opportunity. I have been helped so much,"

"I'm enjoying being here. All of the memory training is paying off" and "most of the staff here are pretty good people."

Some of the comments received from a relative were: "We were fully involved in arranging the placement, everything is done gradually and individualised to the person," "we do see how they (staff) treat other clients as well and they are always very open with people," and "the input provided is great and we would definitely recommend this place to anyone".

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)