You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

This unannounced inspection was undertaken on 13 and 22 March 2018 and was carried out by one inspector. This was the first inspection since a new provider, Sanctuary Home Care Limited, took over the running of the service in March 2017.

Chesterfield Gardens is a ‘care home’ for people who have mental health needs. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service accommodates a maximum of seven people who live in two separate houses on the same street. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living in the two houses. Most of the people using the service had been living at the homes for many years. Most of the staff team had worked for the previous provider and everyone knew each other well.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from potential abuse, bullying or discrimination. People using the service were relaxed with staff and the way staff interacted with people had a positive effect on their well-being.

Risks had been recorded in people’s care plans and ways to reduce these risks had been explored and were being followed appropriately.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were handled and stored securely and administered to people safely and appropriately.

Staff were positive about working at the home and told us they appreciated the support and encouragement they received from the registered manager and the new provider.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005) and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People were included in making choices about what they wanted to eat and staff understood and followed people’s nutritional plans in respect of any cultural requirements or healthcare needs people had.

Both people who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements. People told us that the management and staff listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

All parts of both homes, including the kitchens, were clean and no malodours were detected. Although care staff were expected to carry out cleaning tasks, they told us they were able to maintain a clean environment as well as support people safely.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people’s diversity.

Everyone had an individual plan of care which was reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints and were happy to raise any issues with the registered manager if they needed to.

The management team worked in partnership with other organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and knew how to raise any concerns with the appropriate safeguarding authorities.

Risks to people�s safety had been identified and the management had thought about and recorded ways to mitigate these risks. People had been included in developing their risk assessments when this was possible.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the premises.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were administered to people safely and appropriately.

There were enough staff on duty to support people safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was effective. Staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to support people properly and safely.

Staff understood the principles of the MCA and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People chose and helped prepare meals at the home and staff knew about any special diets people required.

The houses where people lived were well maintained and appropriate to their needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was caring. We observed staff treating people with respect, kindness and dignity.

Staff knew about the various types of discrimination and its negative effect on people�s well-being.

Staff understood people�s likes, dislikes, needs and preferences and people were involved in their care provision.

Staff respected people�s privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was responsive. People�s care was individualised and the management and staff reviewed people�s needs and made changes to people�s care provision when required.

Staff knew how to communicate with people listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

Activities provided by the home and outside of the home met people�s social and spiritual needs.

People told us they were happy to raise any concerns they had with any of the staff and management of the home.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was well-led. The management team worked in partnership with other organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.

The management team ensured that good practice was shared and acted on throughout the service and the organisation.

Quality assurance arrangements were robust and identified current and potential concerns and areas for improvement. This fed into a continuous improvement plan.

People who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements.