Archived: Chaseley Bungalows

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

The service currently has an embargo on admissions implemented by the local authority.

As part of our inspection we spoke with senior staff members. This included the newly appointed deputy manager. We also spoke with care and nursing staff, both permanent and agency staff members.

Not everyone living at the service was able to tell us about their experiences. Those who could told us that they liked living at the Bungalows. We were told, 'I am very happy here. I love it here. It's just the situations that happen now and again that cause problems.' And 'The permanent staff are great just not enough of them, there are too many agency staff. There are no permanent staff any more they have all gone.'

The inspectors considered the inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Is the service safe?

We saw that there were systems in place to report and respond to maintenance issues if they arose. The home had implemented some quality assurance systems to assess and monitor quality of the service provided. However these had not yet become fully embedded into practice.

We saw that there were unsafe practices in relation to medication administration and errors and discrepancies within the medication records.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with people living at Chaseley Bungalows. We were told, 'The senior nurses keep chopping and changing.' And, 'There have been staffing difficulties, as there is no stable team of staff, but staff are available when I need them and they are mostly good.'

The service used a high number of agency staff. We saw that there was not an effective system in place to check agency nurses competencies before they worked at the home. The staff training matrix did not fully reflect the training staff had attended.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff speaking to people and providing care and support. We spoke with care and nursing staff. Permanent staff were able to tell us about people and their care needs. Agency care staff were not seen to access people's care plans at the beginning of a shift. We spoke with agency care staff, one told us, 'The other care staff tell me what to do.'

Is the service responsive?

We looked at accidents and incidents reporting within the service. We saw that incidents had not been reported by staff in accordance with the organisations policy and procedure. When people living at the Bungalows reported to staff that they were experiencing pain or discomfort there was no documented evidence to show that staff had responded to this appropriately or in a timely manner.

Is the service well-led?

The home had a registered manager, deputy manager and one further senior staff member who was responsible for the running of the Bungalows. The senior nurse had only been working at the bungalows for a couple of weeks. In this time a number of new systems had been implemented, however, these had not yet become fully embedded into practice. It was seen that the senior nurse was extremely busy throughout the day. The senior nurse was supported by the registered manager and deputy who divided their time at the Bungalows and a second location which also belonged to the provider.

We were shown that the service asked people who used the service for their feedback, and the results of these surveys, were used to improve the service.

At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at Chaseley Bungalows.

We looked at records relating to staffing to follow up on outstanding actions at the home. We looked at staffing rotas, competencies and training and spoke with staff and people using the service. We were told "I like the variety of different staff." And "when it was all new agency staff they did not know what they were doing, things are ok now, it has improved over the last six months, " People told us that they were happy to raise concerns if they had them.

We found that systems were in place to ensure that the high use of agency staff had not impacted on care provided and staff had been appropriately trained to deliver care and treatment to people using the service.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. Not everyone who lived at Chaseley Bungalows could tell us about the care they received.

During our inspection we found that people and their families/next of kin (NoK) had been involved in decisions about care and treatment. When appropriate consent forms had been signed by people or their NoK.

Care plans were personalised and documented the needs of people. Care reviews and updates had taken place regularly.

We found that the provider had not ensured that there were sufficient, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff at all times. Supervision and training had taken place for some staff.

Safeguarding updates had taken place, however some mandatory training was out of date.

A complaints policy was in place, and evidence was seen that comments and complaints were listened, and responded to in a timely and appropriate manner.