You are here

Chelmunds Court Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2020

Chelmunds Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care to a maximum of 73 people aged 65 and over. Some of those people lived with dementia. The home is purpose built and has two floors. During our visit 48 people lived at the home and one person was in hospital.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The management of people's medicine was not consistently safe because people did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were ordered, received, stored and disposed of safely. Risk management continued to require improvement because the provider could not demonstrate all risks were being well managed. This placed people at risk of potential harm.

People did not always receive personalised and responsive care. People’s care records continued to lack up to date and correct information to help staff provide individualised care.

Management and leadership at the home was not consistent. Management changes had occurred since our last inspection and further changes took place immediately after our visit. Staff provided mixed feedback when we asked them if they felt valued and listened to by their managers.

The management team welcomed our feedback and responded immediately when we shared the concerns we had identified and begun to take reactive action to make improvements. Some areas requiring improvement had been identified prior to our visit but remedial action had not been taken in line with set timescales. Some previously demonstrated standards had not been maintained to ensure compliance with regulations. This showed lessons had not been learnt.

Quality assurance systems continued to be ineffective because the management team did not have sufficient oversight of the service provided. Relatives felt the management team were approachable, but some lacked confidence in their ability to make changes to improve outcomes for people. Overall, people and relatives had confidence in the ability of staff to provide effective care and we observed staff helped people to move safely during our visit.

Staff were recruited safely. They received an induction when they started work and completed ongoing training to help them to be effective in the roles. Enough staff were on duty during our visit to respond to people’s needs in a timely way. However, we received mixed responses when we asked people, their relatives and staff about staffing levels. The nominated individual had begun to explore the feedback we shared with them.

Whilst the mealtime experience in dining rooms was positive for people the provider was unable to demonstrate people had consumed sufficient amounts of food and fluids to maintain their health. Staff knew what people liked to eat and drink and people's dietary preferences were known and catered for.

People felt safe and told us they liked living at the home. Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people and staff received training to help them understand the different types of abuse people might experience.

People said staff had a caring attitude and they felt involved in planning their care. However, some relatives did not share this view point. Staff enjoyed their jobs and spoke fondly about people. People engaged in meaningful activities and continued to be supported to maintain relationships with those that mattered to them. People had opportunities practice their chosen religions and some people’s suggestions to improve the service had been acted upon.

People were supported to be independent. Whilst staff understood the importance of maintaining people’s dignity, it was not consistently upheld. Some relatives felt people's personal belongings were not treated with respect.

The process used to assess people's mental capacity and to ensure their rights were upheld required improvement. However, people were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interes

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2020

The service was not always safe

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2020

The service was not always effective

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2020

The service was not always caring

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2020

The service was not always responsive

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2020

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our well-led findings below.