You are here

The Chase Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2020

The Chase is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to nine people with a learning disability, aged 18 and over at the time of the inspection.

The service has been developed and designed 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.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to nine people. Nine people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found care was not always delivered in line with guidance for managing behaviours that challenged the service and staff training in this area was either out of date or had yet to be completed. We found out of date food stored in the refrigerator. Records related to daily care did not include details of the personal care provided by staff. Consent to take pictures was not always obtained from relatives or people. We found ineffective audits and notifications of incidents and authorised deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) had not been submitted to the CQC as required to do so by law.

People and relatives told us they felt safe. Staff checks were carried out to ensure they were safe to work with people who used the service. Risks to people were assessed and manged to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. People were supported to take their medicines safely. Staffing levels were based on people’s level of need. Systems to manage the risk of the spread of infection were in place, however, out of date food was not disposed of.

People and relatives were mostly asked their consent before care was provided. 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. However, we have made a recommendation in relation to consent to obtain photographs.

People’s needs were assessed and used to develop their plan of care. Daily records required further details in relation to personal care provided by staff. We have made a recommendation in relation to good practice in record keeping.

People received sufficient amounts to eat and drink to maintain their health. Staff received training relevant to their role and understood people’s individual needs. We noted a number of repairs and improvements were required to the kitchen and communal bathrooms. We made a recommendation in relation to developing an action plan with timescales for completing these.

Relatives told us people were treated well by staff who were caring and knew them well. People were supported to maintain their independence where possible. People were encouraged to make daily living decisions about their care and were supported by staff to make choices.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences. Relatives told us they felt their relative was well cared for by staff who understood them well.

Relative

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 26 March 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.