Archived: Chaseborough House

Chaseborough House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Chaseborough House is registered to accommodate 16 older people, on a permanent and a temporary basis. The home is split over two floors with the first floor having access via stairs or a lift. On the ground floor there is a large lounge and a separate dining room. There was level access to the outside patio areas. There were 12 people living at the home at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff had received an induction and continual learning that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. Staff received regular supervision and felt supported, appreciated and confident in their work. People and their relatives had been involved in assessments of care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. The service worked well with professionals such as doctors, nurses and social workers.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse. Staff told us who they would report this both internally and externally. Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. When people were at risk staff had access to assessments and understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff.

Staff were clear on their responsibilities with regards to infection prevention and control and this contributed to keeping people safe. Accident and incidents were recorded and analysed. Lessons learnt were shared with staff in handovers and during meetings.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and were being met. People told us they enjoyed the food and thought the variety and quantity was good.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People, their relatives and professionals described the staff as caring, kind and approachable. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about them. Their life histories were detailed and relatives had been consulted. The home had an effective complaints process and people were aware of it and knew how to make a complaint. The home actively encouraged feedback from people, their relatives and professionals. A variety of activities were provided and the home were working on continual development of this.

People’s end of life needs and preferences were not always included in their care plans. We made a recommendation to the home about capturing people’s end of life wishes and forward planning.

Relatives and professionals had confidence in the service. The home had an open, fun and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of everyone. Leadership was visible within the home. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported. There were effective quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and lessons learnt. The registered manager actively sought to work in partnership with other organisations to improve outcomes for people using the service. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 6 July 2016. It was carried out by one inspector.

Chasebourough House provides residential care for up to 16 older people. There were 12 people living in the home at the time of our visit, some of whom were living with dementia.

The owner was also the registered manager; they were supported by a deputy manager. The deputy manager assisted us throughout the inspection and was joined part way through by the registered manager. 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.

People and relatives were positive about the home and told us staff were friendly and caring. One relative told us they were confident their relation was safe living in the home. Staff understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe and were able to describe to us how they would recognise actual or potential abuse and what actions they would take. People had their risks assessed and if a risk was identified a plan was developed to minimise the risk of harm.

Staff were proud of the charity work that the home was involved in. People and their relatives were invited to contribute to organising and participating in events such as tea dances and funds raised were donated to a chosen charity. This helped maintain links with the local community.

The registered manager had identified areas for improvement which included refurbishment of the home. Some rooms had already been completed. There were plans to refurbish a small lounge area into a reminiscence room; the plans included decorating it in 1950’s style with memorabilia associated with that era. A mini bus had also been purchased which enabled trips out to be organised regularly. One person told us they had been out on trips which they enjoyed.

There was a range of social and leisure activities which included quizzes, tai chi, Zumba and craft work. Peoples craft work was on display one person’s work had been put on permanent display. People were asked for their suggestions and staff were encouraged to lead on activities which they had an interest in.

Feedback was obtained in a number of ways. The registered manager told us they had regular contact with people and their families and had informal discussions with them. There was also a suggestion box and regular social events and meetings as well annual quality questionnaires. One relative told us they attended meetings and felt they could make suggestions if they wanted to.

The home was regularly reviewed and improvements were made. This meant the care and support people received was audited and improvements made. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were stored and administered correctly.

Staff told us they received enough training to enable them to do their jobs. They felt supported by senior staff and one staff member told us they enjoyed working at the home and felt management were approachable. They experienced the team as friendly and welcoming. There was a system for ensuring staff completed mandatory training and staff had an annual appraisal and further learning was supported.

Staff considered there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People told us they were unhurried and staff took their time. We observed staff sitting with people on a one to one and in a group situation. People were relaxed in staff company.

People received personalised care, staff were respectful of their individual likes, dislikes and preferences and people were offered choices. One person told us they were offered a choice at meal times and if they didn’t want what was offered they could request an alternative. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and assessments of people’s capacity had been consistently been made. The registered manager had made appropriate referrals to the local authority for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) where it was appropriate.

People had access to healthcare when they needed it and we saw there had been appointments with a range of healthcare professionals. One person told us staff were responsive when they had been feeling unwell which including seeking medial input and notifying their relative.