You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Cheviot Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The last inspection of this home was carried out on 21 August 2014. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

This inspection took place over two days. The first visit on 2 August 2016 was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. Another visit was made on 3 August July 2016.

Cheviot Court is a purpose-built care home which provides personal care for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. It is registered to provide up to 73 places. At the time of this visit there were 72 people living at the home, and another person moved in during the inspection.

The home had a registered manager who had been in this role for five years. 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.

During this inspection we found a small number of care plans did not include some important details about their needs. This meant people might not receive the right support in a consistent way. We found the organisation's quality checks had already identified this as an issue and action was being taken to address this. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable living at Cheviot Court. One person said, “Its nice place. We’re well-looked after.” Relatives also felt people were safe at the home. One relative told us, “It’s absolutely safe here. It’s peace of mind for us that she’s cared for here.”

Staff had regular training in safeguarding adults and knew how to report any concerns. A local authority commissioner told us, “We do not have any concerns with Cheviot Court.”

Risks to people’s safety and health, such as falls, were appropriately assessed and managed. The premises were safe, comfortable and well maintained. Staff were trained in how to help people evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The provider carried out checks to make sure only suitable staff were employed. Staff assisted people with their medicines in a safe way.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt well cared for in the home. People and relatives felt staff did a “good job”. Staff told us they had good training, supervision and support. Staff said they enjoyed their jobs and were encouraged to develop their careers.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily.

People were complimentary about the quality of the food. Their comments included “The food is very good” and “we’re well-fed”. Relatives said people were supported to eat and drink enough. A relative told us, “Since moving in my family member has started to eat really well and nutritiously, and their health is better because of it.” Any changes in people’s health were referred to the relevant health care agencies.

People had positive comments about how they were cared for. Their comments included, “Staff are canny” and “the staff are friendly”. One person told us, “It’s a nice place.” A relative commented, “The staff are really nice and very helpful.” Another relative said, “The staff seem caring.”

People were addressed by the name that they preferred and staff were familiar with each person’s preferences. We saw people’s personal appearance was respected. People were well groomed and their clothes were clean. One relative commented, “They always keep my [family member] lovely and clean.”

Relatives felt staff knew each person well. For example, one relative told us, “They understand my family member’s individual quirks.” In discussions staff were very knowledgeable about people’s indiv

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was safe.

People said they felt safe living at the home and were comfortable with the staff who supported them.

The provider carried out checks to make sure only suitable staff were recruited.

The building was well maintained and safe. People’s medicines were managed in the right way.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had access to appropriate training in care and in health and safety.

The service applied Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), where applicable, to make sure people were not restricted unnecessarily unless it was in their best interests.

People were supported with their food and drink to make sure their nutritional well-being was promoted.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was caring.

People and relatives said staff were caring and helpful.

People were encouraged to make their own choices.

People were supported with their dignity and personal appearance.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was not always responsive.

A small number of people’s care records did not always include important information about their needs which meant they may not receive the right support.

There was a range of in-house activities, social events and contact with the local community.

There was information about how to make a complaint in every person’s bedroom. People and their relatives said they would be comfortable about making a complaint if necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was well led.

People and visitors felt there was an open and approachable culture within the home. They were asked for their views and suggestions.

There was a registered manager in place who had been managing the home for five years. Staff felt well-informed and valued by the provider.

The provider carried out frequent monitoring visits to check the safety and quality of the service.