You are here

Archived: Chestnut Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 July 2016

Chestnut Court provides 24 hour care, including personal care for up to 62 older people. This includes nursing care for people living with dementia and those with physical needs. The service is a large purpose built property. The accommodation is arranged over three levels. There were 59 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a 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.

We inspected Chestnut Court on 27 and 28 April 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. At this inspection we found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2014 regarding, medicines management, staffing levels and supporting staff. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

People were not safe at the service. There were poor arrangements for managing medicines and there were not enough staff available to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Risk assessments did not always cover all areas of risk relating to people to ensure their risks were minimised and managed.

Staff did not always receive up to date training, supervision and appraisal. Staff did not always treat people with respect and dignity. Peoples care plans were not always regularly reviewed. There was a lack of activities at the service for people to take part in. There was poor record keeping and quality monitoring tools used by the service did not identify issues of safety and quality. Staff had mixed views about the staff culture and management team.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. There were effective and up to date systems in place to maintain the safety of the premises and equipment. We found recruitment checks were in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the service.

Appropriate applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been made and authorised. People using the service had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their needs.

Staff knew people they were supporting. People using the service and their relatives told us the service was caring. Staff respected people’s privacy and encouraged independence. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The service enabled people to maintain links with their culture and religious practices.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 July 2016

The service was not safe. Medicines were not always administered safely. People, their relatives and staff felt there were not enough staff available to meet the needs of people living at the service. Risk assessments did not always cover all areas of risk relating to people to ensure their risks were minimised and managed.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. There were robust safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place and staff understood what abuse was and knew how to report it.

The provider carried out regular equipment and building checks.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 July 2016

The service was not always effective. Staff did not receive training, appraisals and supervision to support them in their role.

People’s health and support needs were assessed and reflected in care records.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access health care services.

People had access to nutritious food and drinks.

Some staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 16 July 2016

The service was not always caring. Staff did not always treat people with respect and dignity.

Care and support was centred on people’s individual needs and wishes. Staff knew about people’s interests and preferences.

People using the service were involved in planning and making decisions about the care and support provided at the service.

The service enabled people to maintain links with their culture and religious practices.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 16 July 2016

The service was not always responsive because peoples care plans were not always regularly reviewed. There was a lack of activities at the service.

There was a complaints process and people using the service and their relatives said they knew how to complain.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 July 2016

The service was not well led. Effective systems were not in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Staff had mixed views about the leadership and staff culture of the service.

People using the service and their relatives told us they found the registered manager to be approachable.