Chalkwell Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Although most people and relatives told us staff were accessible to discuss their care, not all relatives felt they were always involved in the care planning and decision-making process. A relative told us, “My [relative] requires assistance with personal care and has other needs, and I don’t think the service can meet their needs.”

Staff told us they knew people well. Staff worked well with people to understand how they wished to be supported and promoted positive outcomes for them. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as individuals. However, people’s care plans, experiences and risk assessments were not always person centred.

We received feedback from a health professional. They told us, “There is a mixture of frailty and residents with dementia in this home and on some occasions felt the home could have been a little more proactive in their knowledge base in dementia.”

Following the inspection, the registered manager told us they are introducing dementia champions in the service and staff would have access to dedicated support and guidance to improve dementia specific care and understanding.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The registered manager enabled people to access the correct healthcare provisions for them in the local community.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were given the opportunity to give feedback about their experiences of care and support. There was a residents monthly meeting which gave people an opportunity to discuss the running of the service and if there were any changes they wanted to discuss or implemented. Relatives were also given the opportunity to attend a relatives meeting. However, meeting minutes did not include detailed action plans completed to evidence how issues raised were to be addressed, dates to be achieved and if actions had been resolved or remained outstanding.

The registered manager sent surveys to relatives, people using the service and health professionals to gather feedback about the service. The results were analysed for themes and trends. However, people and relatives told us they had not seen the results from the 2025 surveys and were not aware of the outcomes.

We received positive feedback from a health professional. They told us, “Communication with the care home has massively improved, I feel we work well together to provide the best possible care and the manager and I, along with the surgery, work well together to provide this.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Most people and relatives told us they had access to all the services they required. The registered manager told us regular meetings were held with all staff to ensure appropriate referrals were made in a timely way when needed. Staff practices conflicted with what the registered manager told us, as in practice these assurances were not consistently reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments. Care plans were not always person centred or provided guidance on how to support people to have equal access to services by supporting their, mobility, communication and health needs.

The service had processes in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they needed them. However, this was not always reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments, and we found the service did not always respond to concerns in a timely manner.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated people were supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment. The service had developed good relationships with their GP practice and district nurse team.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care plans did not include information and discussions around making informed decisions about their end of life wishes. We did see where people had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order’ in place, their care plans informed staff or other professionals where it was kept in the event of a medical emergency.