Chase House Limited

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

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment; however, these were not consistently embedded and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. People did not always experience meaningful engagement and care was not always delivered in a personalised way.
 

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in relation to dignity, interaction and person-centred care. During this inspection, improvements had been made; however, these were not consistently embedded.

We observed some positive and respectful interactions, for example staff discreetly asking a person if they could support them to the toilet. A person told us, “The staff are excellent… kind, caring, considerate and calm.”

However, this was not consistent. During mealtimes, staff were often focused on tasks, and people were not always supported in a timely way. On occasions, food was offered but not given in a timely way which resulted in a person attempting to eat from an empty pot.

We also observed practices that did not always promote dignity. Staff discussed care needs in communal areas, and people remained in clothing protectors for extended periods after meals. People were also observed sitting without meaningful engagement.

The new management team had recognised these concerns and begun implementing a structured programme to improve interaction and mealtime support. The provider had also acted on feedback, and we observed some improvements, including increased staff presence in dining areas and the use of show plates to support choice. However, these improvements were not yet consistently embedded in practice.
 

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in relation to person-centred care. During this inspection, some improvements had been made; however, these were not consistently embedded.

We observed some positive interactions; however, these were not consistent. For example, a staff member applied a considerable amount of ketchup to a person’s food in line with their preference, and the person responded positively. However, on another occasion, when a person attempted to engage a staff member in conversation by asking whether they had a cat, the interaction was brief and not developed further. A person told us, “Sometimes I just talk to myself if staff are not there.” This meant at times staff were attentive; however, during busier periods they were more focused on tasks, and people were not always engaged in a personalised way. This meant that person-centred care was not consistently reflected in practice.

The new management team had identified the need to improve communication and engagement and had begun implementing a structured programme of staff development; however, this had not yet resulted in consistent improvement.

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in how people were supported to make decisions about their care. During this inspection, improvements had been made; however, these were not consistently embedded.

While we observed people were offered choices, such as whether they wanted to join group activities, food and drink options, and staff sought consent before delivering care, these were not always supported in a person-centred way. Care plans did not provide sufficiently detailed guidance to support independence and choice. Information was often generic and focused on encouraging independence without clearly identifying what people could do for themselves or how staff should support this in practice.

This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to promote independence or support people to make safe and meaningful decisions. A staff member said, “We try and understand what they were like before care… we just ask people what they want.”

The new management had identified the need to improve care planning documents. They focused on stabilising and improving their safety and included this in the structured staff development programme.
 

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in how people’s needs were responded to. During this inspection, improvements had been made.

We observed examples of responsive care. When a person experienced a fall during our visit, staff responded promptly, followed appropriate procedures, used the correct equipment and completed the necessary checks to ensure the person’s safety. Call bells were answered promptly, demonstrating staff availability and responsiveness.

However, some relatives described delays in people’s immediate needs being met. For example, “Sometimes they are pushed for staff, [my relative] has to wait sometimes.”
 

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in relation to staff support and its impact on care delivery. During this inspection, improvements had been made.

Staff spoke positively about support from the new management team and described improvements in communication. The new management team told us they had implemented a structured programme of staff development, beginning with safety and care fundamentals and progressing to mealtime support, emotional support and communication skills. A staff member said, “We are like family here… even when it’s hard.”