You are here

Archived: Chiltern Court

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 December 2011
Date of Publication: 20 January 2012
Inspection Report published 20 January 2012 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People’s care and welfare needs were met. On the basis of the evidence provided and the views of people using the service we found the service to be compliant with this outcome.

User experience

People said care was good at the home and one person said that call bells were answered quickly. They said they had been involved in developing and reviewing their care plans and risk assessments and explanations would be given as needed.

People said they had continued to attend appointments to assist with their health care needs, for example; optician and dental appointments. One person said his last visit to the dentist took place in March 2011; whilst a visit to the optician had taken place two-weeks ago.

Other evidence

During the visit we reviewed two people’s care files. Information within the care files confirmed people’s health and social needs had generally been identified. We saw a number of assessments had taken place. Examples of assessments undertaken included physical and social assessments such as assessments of the person’s hearing, eyesight and nutrition. One eyesight assessment we reviewed gave no indication of this person’s last optician appointment, although it stated glasses were used for vision. We also saw information had been collected about the person’s additional life history, past medical history, next of kin and medication taken.

Examples of assessments completed included: body mapping, continence, bowel, falls, and bedrails and dependency assessments. These assessments and care plans had been completed and monitored monthly. The registered manager said that three-weeks previously the new provider ‘Four Seasons’ had introduced monitoring of fluid balance charts. The registered manager said she had undertaken this monitoring role since implementation.

We saw that care plans had been personalised. Although, reviewed monthly we noted that some care plan dates ranged from 2006 – 2010. These care plans were still in use in 2011. The registered manager said that they had been reviewed and no changes had been required. The registered manager said the original dates had been kept despite some care plans being rewritten.

We tracked a person’s identified risk in relation to fluids and nutrition. This person had been identified a medium risk. This risk level was identified in the care plan which also said to monitor dietary and fluid intake for at least three-days and to review monthly. We reviewed the fluid balance and nutrition charts which showed this person’s intake had been monitored for three-days. The person’s monthly care plan evaluation also confirmed the progress made by this person with intake. From the information we saw it was evident that management guidelines had been followed in relation to this person’s care.

Relatives and friends of people who used services said that staff looked after people very well. They said that staff always greeted them with a smile and were polite. Relatives said that staff always made them feel welcome and would offer them a cup of coffee or tea.