You are here

Tregarne and Chy Koes Respite Service Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 January 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 21 November 2017 and was announced.

Tregarne and Chy Koes is a residential home that provides respite personal care and support to younger adults and older people for up to 15 people. Tregarne and Chy Koes are two separate units. At the time of our inspection two people were receiving respite care at Chy Koes and five people were receiving respite care at Tregarne. People used the service for various short term periods to provide respite for them and their families who were their main carers.

Tregarne and Chy Koes is situated close to the centre of the town of St Austell with all amenities being a walk or short drive away. The service provides single room accommodation for up to 15 adults with a learning disability and or physical disability who need assistance with personal care. Up to ten people can be accommodated at Tregarne and up to five people at Chy Koes. Occupancy levels vary each week due to the nature of the service. The service is a purpose built home on one site but included two separate buildings. There are range of aids and adaptations in place to support people with a range of disabilities which impact on their mobility and movement. Each person has their own room which have en-suite facilities including bathing facilities. There are additional toilets located in both services.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Staffing levels were based around the needs of people using the service. Due to fluctuating occupancy levels, staffing the service needed to be flexible. Staff were responding to this and proposed changes in staffing shift patterns were currently in consultation with the provider and unions.

Staff had been recruited safely, received on-going training relevant to their role and supported by the registered manager and team leaders. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people in their care. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people who used the respite service.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Care records showed they were reviewed and any changes had been recorded.

People’s rights were protected by staff who under stood the Mental Capacity Act and how this applied to their role. Nobody we spoke with said they felt they had been subject to any discriminatory practice for example on the grounds of their gender, race, sexuality, disability or age. There was a strong focus on protecting people’s human rights.

Care records were generally organised, detailed, personalised and comprehensive care records were regularly updated and reviewed with involvement from people and their families. However, both units used their own recording system. The registered manager is working towards unifying both systems to ensure continuity. Care and support plans included person centred daily observation records that identified the care and support interventions that had been provided around care and support for the person being supported.

We observed positive exchanges between staff and people who used the respite service. There was a culture on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered person centre

Inspection areas



Updated 11 January 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse or mistreatment.

People were supported safely with their medicines.

People were supported by staff who had been safely recruited.

People had a range of risk assessments in place covering various aspects of their daily lives.



Updated 11 January 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had undergone training to carry out their role effectively.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals as required.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).



Updated 11 January 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported to maintain their independence in their home and in the community.

People�s support was personalised to their individual needs.

Staff understood how to ensure people�s human rights were protected ensuring they did not experience discrimination in any form.



Updated 11 January 2018

The service was responsive.

The service was responsive to people�s needs. Care was planned and delivered to meet people�s individual needs.

The service was flexible and adaptable to meet changes in people�s needs and requirements.

There were systems in place for receiving and handling complaints.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2018

The service was mainly well led.

People told us they were not always informed in a timely way of changes in the service which may affect them.

There was a clear management structure within the service with regular oversight by senior management.

Staff told us they were able to put their views across to their manager, and felt they were listened to.

There were systems in place to gain people�s views and took action in response to people�s feedback.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service.