You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 March 2018

This inspection took place on 29 November 2017 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection in March 2017, we found the provider was not meeting legal requirements in relation to Safe care and treatment, Staffing and Good governance. At that inspection, we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to make improvements for people who used the service.

During this inspection, we checked the improvements the provider had made and found they were meeting legal requirements.

Chaseley Care Home 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.

Chaseley Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 people who require 24-hour care. At the time of our inspection, 18 people were living at the home. The premises are an adapted hotel on the promenade. Accommodation in provided over three floors, with a passenger lift for access between floors.

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.

Electrical and gas installations had been tested and certified as safe. A full re-wire of the home had taken place in August 2017. The water supply had also been checked for safety.

The provider had refurbished some bedrooms which were pleasantly decorated. However, some other areas of the home required refurbishment. There were areas of the home which required maintenance. We have made a recommendation about this.

We found the service had safe practices with regard to managing medicines. Staff who administered medicines had all been trained to do so safely.

Staffing levels had been assessed in line with the needs of people who lived at the home. This helped to ensure there were always enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

People’s needs were met by a well-established and trained staff team. Staff received a good level of support from the management team.

People we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were treated as individuals and enabled to maintain as much independence and control as possible.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. The provider had systems to protect people against the risks of abuse or unsafe treatment. Staff we spoke with were aware of procedures to follow in order to help people to keep safe.

People were offered a choice of food and drinks and spoke positively about the meals provided to them.

The service sought guidance and advice from external professionals when necessary, in order to ensure people’s ongoing health needs were met.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service worked within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Written plans of care and assessments of people’s needs were kept under review. These were personalised and showed people or, where appropriate, others acting on their behalf had been involved in the care planning process.

The provider had a complaints policy. People knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns and felt they would be listened to. People told us they felt any concerns would be dealt with appropriately.

The registered manager carried out audits and encouraged people to share their views on their experiences of the service. This helped to ensure the quality of the service was assessed and monitored regularly.

People w

Inspection areas



Updated 1 March 2018

The service was safe.

Medicines management systems were safe and staff were trained to administer medicines in line with best practice guidelines.

Staffing levels were assessed against the needs of people who lived at the home to ensure enough staff were deployed to meet people�s needs.

The provider had systems to protect people against the risks of abuse or unsafe care.


Requires improvement

Updated 1 March 2018

The service was not always effective.

Some parts of the home required maintenance work to be carried out. The proposed schedule of works had not yet been agreed.

People were supported by a well-established staff team who received a good level of training and support.

People�s ongoing health needs were monitored and managed appropriately. Guidance and advice from external healthcare professionals was sought when required.



Updated 1 March 2018

The service was caring.

People�s privacy and dignity was promoted by staff who were kind, caring and compassionate in their approach.

Staff had built good caring relationships with people who lived at the home. They knew them well, including their social histories and preferences.



Updated 1 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and care was planned to meet their individual needs.

Care plans were personalised and were regularly reviewed. People were involved in developing their care plans.

The service recognised the importance of maintaining people�s social health and arranged activities for people both inside and out of the home.



Updated 1 March 2018

The service was well-led.

Checks to make sure the premises and equipment were safe had been carried out. A schedule was in place to ensure this happened regularly.

The provider had systems to monitor the quality of the service provided and to seek the views and experiences of people who received a service.

There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the service. The staff team received a good level of support from management.