We carried out a review of the data available to us about Chantry Gardens on 6 July 2023. 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 Chantry Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.
Chantry Gardens is a care home providing care and accommodation for three people with a learning disability and/or autism. At the time of inspection there were three people living at the service. The property was a bungalow with its own gardens and parking. People had their own room and shared two lounges, bathrooms and a kitchen. There were no identifying signs, cameras or industrial bins to indicate this property was a care home.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and staff told us the service was safe. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and staff understood how to report any concerns. Risks were identified and assessed, and all management plans were reviewed. Any incidents or accidents had been recorded and the registered manager reviewed them to identify any further risks. Staff had been recruited following pre-employment checks and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
Staff had been trained and were supported. Staff shared information with each other and made referrals to healthcare professionals. People had health action plans and needs had been assessed. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and do their own shopping and meal preparation where appropriate.
People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. Staff supported people to access their local community and services. There was planned activities in place but also people could follow their own interests.
People had their own care plans which were regularly reviewed. Information was accessible to people and staff followed communication guidance. There was a complaints policy in place but there had been no complaints. People had opportunities to voice their opinions and ideas to improve the service.
There was a registered manager in post who had started at the service since our last inspection. They were supported in their role by a senior support worker and an operations manager who visited monthly. Quality assurance systems were in place and action plans were produced to identify improvements. People and staff had regular meetings to discuss their views which were recorded and if needed, actions identified.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection - The last rating for this service was Good (published 1 June 2017).
Why we inspected - This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up - We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service offers accommodation and support to three people who have learning disabilities. The home is a domestic sized house, set within a housing estate. Accommodation is provided on one floor. Individuals have their own bedrooms and there are spacious communal areas.
There was a registered manager in post when we inspected the service. 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 service worked to ensure there were sufficient number of staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The registered manager told us a minimum ratio of two staff to three people was required for 14½ hours of each day shift and two staff to sleep at the home during the night.
An internal support team managed the provision of agency staff cover. The registered manager told us this team approached different agencies and consequently a lot of different agency staff had worked at the service over the past six weeks. This meant there was a risk many different staff entering the home who people were not familiar with, may lead to them feeling unsettled.
People participated in activities such as arts and crafts, reading, taking part in various community activities such as shopping and walking in the local area. People were also encouraged to engage in daily routines such as cleaning and tidying their rooms, laundry and preparation of their meals.
Meaningful activities were arranged for people which they said they enjoyed. The registered manager told us they were currently looking at setting long and short term personal goals for people as it had been highlighted during a recent review that these had not been set to ensure people were experiencing sufficient person centred activities.
Risk assessments had been completed and guidance on how to provide care in response to these were available in people’s care records.
Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and who to report these to. Staff told us they had received safeguarding training and we confirmed this from training records. Staff were aware of different types of abuse people may experience and the action they needed to take if they suspected abuse was happening.
Medicines were managed safely. We observed medicines being administered. Staff administered medicines as prescribed and signed for medicines when they were sure these had been taken.
The ordering, storage and disposal of medicines was well managed. Stock levels were regularly checked to ensure there were sufficient medicines available to people according to what they had been prescribed.
Systems were in place to track when staff training was due and to ensure this had been completed. Where staff were due training, this had been scheduled accordingly. Staff told us they were confident the training they received equipped them with the skills and knowledge necessary for them to support people in line with their needs.
There were positive caring interactions from staff towards people using the service. Staff knew how to support people to be independent; giving them choices. People’s care records had details of their preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff were also aware of these and knew people well.
The registered manager was accessible and approachable throughout our inspection. Staff, relatives and people who used the service told us the registered manager was available if they needed to speak with her and had confidence in their abilities to manage the service.
This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 27 October 2014.
The service offers accommodation and support to three people who have learning disabilities. The home is a domestic sized house, set within a housing estate. Accommodation is provided on one floor. Individuals have their own bedrooms and there are spacious communal areas.
There is a registered manager running the 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 home had a variety of ways to keep people as safe as possible. Care workers were trained in and understood how to protect people in their care from harm or abuse. People told us they felt very safe and could talk to staff and the manager about any concerns or worries they had.
Individual and general risks to people were identified and managed appropriately. The home had a robust recruitment process to try to ensure the staff they employed were suitable and safe to work there. The home had a stable staff group who had built strong relationships with people who lived there. Staff members had an in-depth knowledge of people and their needs. The staff team were well supported by the registered and area managers to ensure they were able to offer good quality care to people.
The service understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people in their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS provide a lawful way to deprive someone of their liberty, provided it is in their own best interests or is necessary to keep them from harm. They had taken any necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights.
People were supported and encouraged to look after their health. Care staff were skilled in communicating with people and in helping them to make as many decisions for themselves as they could. People were encouraged to be as independent as they were able to be, as safely as possible.
People were given the opportunity to participate in a variety of activities both individually and with others. People were treated with dignity and respect at all times. They were involved in all aspects of daily life and helped to meet any spiritual, behavioural or emotional needs.
The house was well kept, very clean and comfortable. People’s rooms reflected their individual preferences and tastes, as did the communal areas of the home.
Staff told us the home was managed well with an open and positive culture. People and staff told us the registered manager was very approachable and was willing to talk about anything.
We found that people's health and welfare needs were being met and the support they received was appropriate to their needs. People were being well treated and there were systems in place to protect them from possible abuse.
Staff were found to be competent in their support of people and they received appropriate training and support to be able to meet people's needs.
We found that the quality of the service was being monitored and systems were in place to evaluate risks in order to provide a safe environment for people living, working and visiting the home
We were told decisions such as what to wear, their appearance and times to get up and go to bed were made by the individual. Staff knocked on bedroom doors before they entered but bedrooms were not lockable, although we were told by people they 'don't need a key'.
We observed an aggressive incident during our visit. We saw staff calmly remove the trigger which caused the behaviour and supported the person to calm down in their bedroom. Once calm this person returned to their previous activity. We observed another member of staff supported another individual to access community activity
As people could not tell us whether staff were trained to meet their needs, we made observations. We saw that staff supported people appropriately.
We spoke to three healthcare professionals who were mostly positive in their comments about the service. However, some concerns were raised with regard to attendance at day services and the staff's reluctance to participate.