The Chase Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider and staff demonstrated a clear commitment to continuous improvement. They did not review information in isolation; instead, they always considered how learning could be applied across the service to improve safety for everyone. The provider actively looked for opportunities to learn lessons throughout the organisation and shared these with staff. This helped improve practice, strengthen teamwork, and support continuous improvement in the quality and safety of care.

For example, where concerns were identified with a piece of equipment for 1 person, the provider reviewed the provision for all people. Considerations around safety checks were made, and appropriate actions taken. One person’s relative told us, “[Person] is much safer here than at home. [Staff] are always thinking about how they can prevent [incidents] from happening.”

The provider had clear processes in place to investigate when things went wrong, and this included sharing information with external bodies and professionals when required.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider had effective systems in place to support safe care pathways and smooth transitions. They maintained contact with healthcare partners to improve services, and partners told us communication with the provider occurred when concerns arose. When it became clear staff would benefit from additional skills to recognise deterioration in a person’s health, the provider took prompt action to strengthen staff confidence and training. This supported safer decision making and improved the quality-of-care people received.

One visiting healthcare professional told us, “[Staff] are good at identifying when a [person’s] needs change and highlight to [health professionals] appropriately.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider took safeguarding matters seriously and had a dedicated safeguarding champion who provided additional support to staff and people if needed. Key staff received enhanced safeguarding training, so they had the right knowledge to take appropriate action. Safeguarding workshops were held for both people and staff, helping people understand what safeguarding meant, how to report concerns, and what being safe meant to them. Staff were confident in how to report any concerns within the organisation and to external bodies, including the local authority, the police and the Care Quality Commission. This supported a culture of safety and protection across the service.

We asked people if they felt safe at the care home. Some feedback included, “Of course I feel safe here.” “I feel perfectly safe here.” Safeguarding was embedded in practice and policies were aligned with national guidance and reviewed regularly.

We approached the local authority for feedback, and they told us the provider engaged and provided assurances when required.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The provider was able to identify when people were potentially being deprived of their liberty, complied with the basic principles of the Act, and made applications or/and urgent authorisations in a timely manner.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were supported to maintain independence while staying safe. For example, when a person liked to walk outside on their own, the provider introduced additional safety measures to support this. The provider organised and delivered specific information events, such as staying safe on the internet, which was available to all people, their visitors and staff to attend.

We identified some work was needed to ensure risk assessments consistently included all people’s known risks, particularly where health conditions could have a contributing effect. This included situations where a person’s condition might affect their nutritional intake or increase their risk of pressure sores. The provider took immediate action to review and update risk assessments during our assessment, and this helped to ensure risks to people were fully recognised and managed. We found no harm had come to anyone, and appropriate environmental and equipment risk‑reducing measures were in place.

One visiting healthcare professional told us, “[Staff] implement our requests promptly, including equipment upgrades and changes to diet and fluid intake to address issues with [people’s health needs].”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider ensured the environment was safe by completing all required safety checks, and any remedial actions were addressed promptly. External contractors were used to maintain and oversee specific safety systems and equipment, which helped keep the environment safe and well managed. These measures supported a well‑maintained setting where people could receive care safely.

Staff received training which helped them to respond to safety concerns in the care home. Where practical fire drills evidenced staff would benefit from additional training to increase their confidence, this was arranged. However, we made a recommendation to the provider to continually monitor staff confidence during fire drills to ensure prompt response and support was given, whilst any further formal training was arranged.

The environment was clean, well-maintained and free from hazards. The managers undertook ‘out of hours’ visits to the care home, which included review of the environment and the safety systems. During our assessment the provider fitted automatic door closures to a high use area, this ensured access was appropriate for staff, and automatic closure took place in the event of the fire alarm activating.

Safety codes were in place, where required. This helped to ensure high risk areas were secure and people were protected, where possible, from incident or injury. People told us the codes helped them to feel safe and they were able to access areas, should they wish. People’s relatives told us the maintenance of specific equipment, such as personal wheelchairs, was safely reviewed and completed by specific staff.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We found improvements were needed to ensure dependency assessments fully reflected people’s needs, so staffing levels could be planned with confidence. The provider acted promptly on our feedback and reviewed the assessments. Following this review, we found no discrepancies in staffing provision which could have placed people at risk of harm. Active staff recruitment was taking place; this was to ensure staffing numbers increased safely in line with occupancy levels and people’s needs.

People, and their relatives gave mixed feedback about staffing levels, but most told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. For example, 1 person told us, “There seems to be plenty of staff and they always come to me really quickly if I need anything. I haven’t had any problems.” Another person said, “When [staff] do come to me, if I say I want [assistance] they will do it immediately.” However, another person said, “I do feel that sometimes the staff are a bit pressed for time. I have had to wait half an hour sometimes. I suppose that is more unusual and it hasn’t caused me any problems apart from the time to wait.” People’s relatives also told us there could be occasions where staff were not always available when their loved one required support.

Staff mostly told us there were enough staff. One staff member told us, “Yes, we have enough staff. Absolutely we do.” Another staff member said, “There is enough staff, absolutely, and we all do things to help people when they need help.” However, we did receive some feedback from staff of there not always being enough staff when occupancy or people’s needs changed.

We shared specific feedback with the nominated individual, who confirmed staffing levels would remain under continuous review. The manager told us they were dedicated to monitoring staffing levels, including monthly and when people’s needs changed, they felt confident they could adjust staffing numbers at any time, should it be required.

Staff had received the training required for their roles, and nationally recognised qualifications were available to help them build further skills in health and social care. The provider recognised the importance of ensuring staff had a variety of training opportunities, and this included how the training was provided. For example, the provider developed a training provision which allowed staff to understand how certain experiences felt for people with specific conditions, such as dementia. The training provision included simulation of visual and sensory perceptions.

The provider thoroughly assessed and managed the risk of infection. They always quickly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and always shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Across all 3 of our visits, we found the home to be spotlessly clean, fresh, and fully aligned with safe infection prevention and control procedures. Staff consistently demonstrated an exemplary ability to detect and manage infection risks, with clear and thorough communication taking place with people, their relatives and relevant agencies whenever needed.

Domestic staff were dedicated, diligent and worked safely, ensuring the environment remained both exceptionally clean and homely. We observed all staff, across every department, displaying an outstanding approach to infection control. This strong, consistent practice created a safe, well‑maintained environment that protected people from the risk of infection. We found all equipment and furnishings to be of a good and well-kept standard.

People told us the domestic staff worked very hard to maintain the care home environment. One person said, “[Domestic staff] come in and clean my room every day. The whole home seems very clean to me.” Another person told us, “[Domestic staff] work really hard to keep everywhere clean and I think they do a good job.”

People’s relatives also told us they were pleased with the level of hygiene at the care home, 1 relative said, “I think the cleaning is amazing.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider had safe systems in place to ensure medicines were administered safely, including clear procedures to make sure time‑critical medicines were given exactly as prescribed. Robust auditing processes helped monitor safe practice, and staff had received appropriate training along with competence assessments to ensure they handled medicines safely and confidently. These measures supported consistent, safe medicines management across the service.

One person told us, “[Staff] take care of my medication really well. They have told me what I am taking. They ask if you need any [pain relief] which is good. I haven’t had any problems with my medication.” Another person said, “They look after my medication for me, and I know exactly what I take.” People’s relatives told us they were mostly happy with medicines management at the care home, some told us of past concerns, which had been appropriately addressed and managed.