You are here

Archived: Chase Park Neuro Centre Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 4 and 7 September 2015.

We last inspected Chase Park Neuro Centre in October 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the legal requirements in force at the time.

Chase Park Neuro Centre is registered to provide care to 60 people aged 18 years or over. The site is split into two locations, one which provides rehabilitation to people with a neurological condition and one which provides specialist nursing care to people with a neurological condition together with a service user group of older people.

A registered manager was 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.

People said they felt safe. We had concerns however that there were not enough staff on duty to provide safe and individual care to people.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. When new staff were appointed, thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People did not always receive their medicines in a safe way.

Not all areas of the home were clean and well maintained for the comfort of people who used the service. Equipment was not always available to meet people’s needs.

Staff undertook risk assessments where required and people were routinely assessed against a range of potential risks, such as falls, mobility, skin damage and nutrition. However, risks were not all regularly reviewed to reflect current risks to the person.

Staff were provided with training to give them some knowledge and insight into the specialist conditions of people in order to meet their care and support needs. People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Regular staff knew people’s care and support needs. However care records we looked at were not all up to date. They lacked evidence of regular evaluation and review to keep people safe and to ensure all staff were aware of their current individual care and support needs.

People received a varied and balanced diet.

People said staff were kind and caring. However we saw staff did not always interact and talk with people when they had the opportunity. There was an emphasis on task centred care.

There was a programme of entertainment and activities provided by the activities person, however when they were not available, other staff did not provide activities for people to remain stimulated. People we spoke with and relatives said more activities and stimulation needed to be provided for people.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to give their views about the service. A complaints procedure was available.

The home had a quality assurance programme to check the quality of care provided. However, the systems used to assess the quality of the service had not identified all the issues that we found during the inspection to ensure people received individual care that met their needs.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2016

Not all aspects of the service were safe.

People told us they felt safe however staffing levels were not sufficient to ensure people were looked after in a safe and timely way.

Staff were aware of different forms of abuse and they said they would report any concerns they may have to ensure people were protected.

Most people received their medicines in a safe manner.

Checks were carried out regularly to ensure the building was safe and fit for purpose.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2016

The service was not always effective.

Staff were supported to carry out their role and they received the training they needed.

Best interest decisions were made appropriately on behalf of people, when they were unable to give consent to their care and treatment.

People received a varied and balanced diet to meet their nutritional needs.

The environment was showing signs of wear and tear in several areas on the rehabilitation suite.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2016

The service was not always caring.

Staff were kind and caring but there was an emphasis on task centred care. Some staff did not spend time talking with people or engaging with them.

We found people on the rehabilitation suite were helped to make choices and to be involved in daily decision making. However, older persons who occupied the nursing suite were not involved in daily decision making.

There was a system for people to use if they wanted the support of an advocate.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Records did not always reflect the care and support provided by staff.

There were limited activities and entertainment available for people.

People had information to help them complain. Complaints and any action taken were recorded.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2016

Not all aspects of the service were well-led.

A registered manager was in place. Staff and relatives told us the registered manager was supportive and could be approached at any time for advice and information.

The systems used to assess the quality of the service had not identified the issues that we found during the inspection. Therefore the quality assurance processes were not effective as they had not ensured that people received safe care that met their needs.