Archived: Chaseley Care Home

On this inspection, these areas of concern had improved and the service was compliant. We did not speak with people on this inspection but we looked at care records and any incidents or accidents to check these were being recorded satisfactorily.

We saw on this inspection, that informative, accurate records were being completed. Personal information was being recorded in individual personal records allowing this to remain confidential. This meant that only people who needed this information had access to it.

At the last inspection the provider had not been notifying the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of events which affected the home. After that inspection the home began informing CQC of any incidents without delay. This meant that we were able to monitor the service effectively and carry out our regulatory responsibilities.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us that the staff were very good and that they received care and support when they wanted it. They also told us they felt safe.

People living in the home were treated with respect and dignity. We saw that people were receiving safe and appropriate care which was meeting their needs. Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

There were enough staff on the inspection to support people as they needed. People's care needs were taken into account when staffing the home, with additional staff provided when needed. The providers were aware that staffing needed regularly reviewing where the needs of people in the home increased.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and best interests meetings had been carried out to assist with particular decisions. Staff were aware of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Service contracts were in place. Maintenance records we looked at showed that regular safety checks were carried out. Any repairs were usually completed quickly and safely. These measures ensured the home was maintained so people were safe.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and reviewed with them. We saw that care plans were up to date and reflected people's individual, dietary, mobility, cultural and religious needs. However some records had information missing or were in a record that was not confidential to that person. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to meeting their care needs.

People confirmed and records showed that they were able to see people in private and that friends and relatives could visit whenever they wished.

The individual needs of people were taken into account with the layout of the home enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises were suitable to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, attentive and informed staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement and guidance when supporting people.

People told us that the staff were very kind and supportive. One person said, "The staff are excellent. We have the best here.' Another person told us, 'I am comfortable and well looked after. What more could I want.' A relative said, 'The home is first class. It couldn't be better.'

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service could discuss their views or concerns with the manager or staff. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

We found a range of activities were organised to keep people entertained. We observed people involved in social and leisure activities, going out of the home and chatting with staff. People said that they enjoyed the activities.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They said they had no complaints and were happy in the home. One person said, 'If we were unhappy with anything we would tell the staff and they would sort it for us.' Another person told us, 'I would just have a little word and it would be dealt with straight away.' A relative told us, 'I have never had any complaints but I am sure that if I did the staff would help.'

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records showed that any identified problems were addressed.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and of the ethos of the home. They felt that they worked together effectively. Staff had regular meetings so were involved in decisions about the home.

We were not always notified of any incidents or issues relating to the home in a timely manner. This meant that we did not receive all the information about the home that we should have done. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to acting on people's changing care needs.

Outcome 8 ' Cleanliness and infection control

Outcome 16 ' Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

This was because the home was not compliant at the previous inspection.

We spoke with a range of people about the home. They included the provider, staff and people who lived at the home. We also had responses from external agencies including the local authority contracts team. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced living at Chaseley Care Home.

We saw that people were relaxed and happy during our inspection. The home was clean and tidy and new measures had been introduced to maintain infection control. Outstanding issues with the service's safety certificates had been addressed.

We observed that the service ensured that people were cared for in a supportive and dignified manner. One person told us, 'The care here is excellent'. People felt their meals were of a high standard and stated they felt safe living at the home.

However, although the Chaseley had ample infection control products, we were concerned their related systems were not always effective. Additionally, people were at risk from unsafe or unsuitable premises. This was because the service's gas and electrical safety certificates could not be provided.

Staff felt supported by the manager and providers. The home provided appropriate levels of staff supervision and training. Care records were of a good standard. Care plans and risk assessments were in-depth, signed and regularly reviewed. The Chaseley had some appropriate processes in place to monitor the quality of service provision.

People said they received support with their dietary needs. One person said, "I can have second helpings and plenty of vegetables. I'm diabetic so they get me yoghurts as an alternative".

People we spoke with told us their care needs were being fully met and felt safe and secure within the home. People said they had support from staff to help them remain safe. One person told us they were independent and was able to access the community as they pleased. One person said, 'I like to go out shopping, I can go out with staff or alone depending how I am".

People using the service told us they were supported to do the things they wanted to. They had meetings where they could discuss the service they received and contribute their ideas to the running of the home.