We carried out a review of the data available to us about Chesterfield House 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 Chesterfield House, you can give feedback on this service.
Chesterfield House is a care home providing personal and nursing care to six adults under and over 65 years of age with learning disabilities, mental health disorders, or autism.
Chesterfield house accommodates up to six people in one adapted building. The accommodation is arranged over two floors, linked via staircases. The communal areas, including a lounge, dining room and separate sitting room, are on the ground floor along with a kitchen and laundry room. Outside there is an activities/craft room and gardens.
The service has been developed and adapted 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
Staff provided care in a truly person-centred way and they had an excellent and in-depth knowledge and understanding of the diverse needs of the people they cared for. This was evident in the positive relationships staff built with people and the extremely positive outcomes people achieved. People developed much greater independence during their time at the service and were happy and fulfilled.
The services were very flexible and tailored to each individual and their choices. Staff were proactive in identifying new opportunities for people to be involved with and built links with the community. People were encouraged to be socially active and they were involved in local community initiatives and charities. They were supported to maintain their relationships with family and friends. People and their families were fully involved and consulted in such a way that they felt empowered, listened to and valued. People’s care plans were fully reflective of their individual needs and their communication care plans were detailed and comprehensive.
People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. People felt safe and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the people they cared for. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and interventions were put into place to mitigate those risks. Staffing levels were planned to ensure there were sufficient staff with the right skills and experience to provide safe care that was responsive to people’s individual needs. People’s medicines were managed safely and people told us they received their medicines regularly.
Staff were supported to deliver effective care and received training to gain and further develop their knowledge and skills. They received regular supervision and appraisal. People were provided with a healthy and nutritious diet; they told us they were fully involved in deciding the menu and they enjoyed their meals. People were supported to access health services when required and staff sought specialist advice when necessary.
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.
People continued to be supported by staff who showed empathy and kindness toward them. They supported people physically and emotionally and gave them confidence to access new experiences and lead fulfilled lives. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.
The service was well-led. The registered manager provided good leadership and was respected by staff. The quality and consistency of care was monitored through the use of audits and the views of staff, people using the service and visitors was sought. Improvements were identified from the results of these activities, to facilitate the continuous improvement of the quality of the service provided.
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 June 2017). At this inspection the service remained good.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
The service was run by a company that was the registered provider. There was a registered manager in post. 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 home is run. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we sometimes refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.
At the last inspection on 2 December 2014 the home was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the home remained Good.
Our inspection was announced and was carried out on 4 May 2017. We gave the registered persons a short period of notice. This was because the people who lived at the home had complex needs for care and benefited from knowing in advance that we would be calling.
Care staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. Suitable steps had been taken to reduce the risk of avoidable accidents and people were supported to take their medicines safely.
Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed and there were enough staff on duty.
Care staff knew how to support people in the right way. People enjoyed their meals and they had been helped to obtain all of the healthcare assistance they needed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the home supported this practice.
People were treated with compassion and respect. Care staff recognised people’s right to privacy and promoted their dignity. Confidential information was kept private.
People had been supported to pursue their hobbies and interests.
People had been consulted about the development of their home and there was a system in place for quickly and fairly resolving complaints.
Quality checks had been effective in ensuring that people received safe care. Care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns and good team work was promoted. People had benefited from care staff acting upon good practice guidance.
This inspection was carried out on 02 December 2014. Our last inspection of the service took place on 3 December 2013 during which we found the service was meeting all the essential standards that we assessed.
Chesterfield House provides care and support for up to six men and women with a learning disability and co-morbid conditions such as personality disorder, mental health and forensic related issues. When we undertook our inspection there were six people living at the service.
There was an established registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. At the time of the inspection none of the people who lived at the service had their freedom restricted.
Staff received regular training and had the knowledge and skills needed to support people in ways that were safe and which protected people.
We found people were supported to be safe and were always treated with compassion and dignity. Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and wherever possible, to feel included in the way the home was run. Staff provided care and support in a warm and caring manner and people received support in the way they wished.
There were arrangements in place for ordering, storing, safely administering and disposing of the medicines people needed to keep them healthy. People also had access to healthcare professionals when they required specialist help.
Staff were responsive to changes in their care needs. Throughout our visit we saw staff supported people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff showed us they knew about people's needs, interests, likes and dislikes.
We also found that sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were flexible to meet the needs of people and could be increased to support people to go out if they preferred to have staff with them.
People were able to raise any issues or concerns with the provider and systems were in place to ensure action would be taken by the manager and the provider to address them.
We found the service was well led and the manager provided consistent leadership. Arrangements were in place to continually assess and monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. The arrangements in place for monitoring and audit enabled the provider and manager to regularly check on and take appropriate actions to continue to keep developing the quality of the care they provided.
Information was available for people about what the service provided and people told us they liked living at the home. They said they had plenty to do and were given choices about the activities they undertook and were encouraged to be independent, with support from staff when needed.
One person said, 'I love being here there is so much to do.' Another person said, 'This is the best place I have lived.'
Care records showed how support was provided to people and we observed staff were respectful and courteous toward people when they gave the support people had asked for.
People said they liked the food at the home and we saw people made choices regarding the food and drink they wanted. We saw people were actively supported to make their own meals at times they had chosen.
The environment was well maintained and people had their own rooms which they kept clean with support from staff when they wanted it.
We found the provider had effective systems in place for monitoring and auditing the services provided. When we asked people about the quality of care at Chesterfield House no one could think of anything they would change about the home or the care they received.
Comments included," I help with meals and gardening and love those jobs", " I am waiting for carpet samples to choose my next bedroom carpet" and " I've got my own room."