You are here

Chelmunds Court Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

This inspection visit took place on 16 January 2019 and was unannounced.

Chelmunds Court 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.

Chelmunds Court accommodates up to 73 people in one adapted building. The home has two floors. It provides residential and nursing care to older people who live with dementia. During our visit 31 people lived at the home and one person was in hospital. The home is located in Solihull, West Midlands.

At our inspection in June 2018 we identified the need for improvement in all the key questions. We found six breaches of the regulations. The service was rated 'Inadequate' overall. Due to the seriousness of our concerns we imposed a condition on the provider's registration. The condition required the provider to complete regular quality and safety checks and provide us with monthly reports to demonstrate improvements were being made.

The service was placed into 'Special Measures'. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe.

In August 2018 in response to information of further concern we carried out a focused inspection looking at the key questions of Safe and Well Led. Despite some improvements being made the rating remained ‘Inadequate.’

At this inspection improvements have been made in all areas. The service is no longer rated as 'inadequate' overall or in any of the key questions. We have removed the condition we had imposed on the provider’s registration and the service is no longer in Special Measures.

The service is required to have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A manager had been in post since August 2018. Their application to apply to register with us is under consideration.

The management team had worked hard in the previous six months to make changes. The quality of care had improved and changes made needed to be sustained over a longer period of time as more people came to live at the home in order to be fully embedded.

People and relatives were happy with the service provided and the way the home was managed. Staff received on-going support and training to be effective in their roles. Staff morale and job satisfaction was now good. Staff respected people’s rights to privacy, maintained their dignity and independence. Staff were described as caring and kind; they knew people well and were responsive to their needs. Care plans supported staff to provide personalised care. Work was on-going to improve care records and compile new care plans. Relatives were encouraged to be involved in their family member's care and there were no restrictions on visiting times.

Quality monitoring within the service had strengthened. Action had been taken in response to the feedback gathered from people. However, further action was needed to ensure all audits and checks were effective. The management team continued to work in partnership with the local authority and the CCG to drive this forward.

People felt safe and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people. Some risk management plans required improvement to ensure people were kept as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were monitored, and action had been taken to prevent reoccurrence.

People received their medicines when they needed them, and medicines were in stock. Further improvement was needed to ensure medicine protocols were detailed and medicines were always stored

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

People felt safe. Staff were recruited safely and enough staff were on duty to meet people’s needs. Care was planned to manage and reduce risks. Some risk management plans required improvement to ensure people were kept as safe as possible. People received their medicines, but further improvement was needed to ensure medicine management was consistently safe. The home was clean, and staff followed good infection control practices.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

The service was not consistently effective.

People enjoyed the food and staff had good knowledge of people's dietary needs. People were supported to eat and drink to maintain their health. Further improvement was required to ensure people had access to health professionals when needed. New staff were supported to be effective in their roles. Staff were skilled and confident in their practice and spoke positively about their training. The provider was working within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Caring

Good

Updated 2 March 2019

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring. People were offered choices and were cared for in a respectful and dignified way. People were supported them to be independent and maintain relationships that were important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 March 2019

The service was responsive.

Staff knew people well and were responsive to their needs. Work was on-going to improve care records and compile new care plans. People had opportunities to maintain their hobbies and interests. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and most felt comfortable to do so.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 2 March 2019

The Service was not consistently well led.

People thought the home was well-run and relatives had gained confidence in the leadership of the service. Staff enjoyed their jobs and felt supported by their managers. Managers had worked hard to make improvements, but audits and checks were not yet fully effective and needed further time to embed. Action had been taken in response to the feedback gathered from people to drive forward improvement.