Chestnut House

Updated 2 October 2024

Date of Assessment: 9 to 15 October 2024. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people living with dementia. People felt safe. Staff understood and managed risks. Managers investigated incidents, ensuring actions were taken to reduce further risks. The home was mainly clean; all areas had been thoroughly cleaned by the second day of our assessment. Equipment met the needs of people and was well-maintained. There were enough staff on duty, who received training and regular supervision. Staff managed medicines well. People and their families were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff regularly reviewed assessments. People had enough to eat and drink. Staff monitored people’s health and worked well with medical professionals. Staff sought people’s consent before providing support. Staff involved people’s families for decisions made in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. However, this was not always clearly recorded. Records were updated following our inspection. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. People were treated as individuals. Staff supported people to make choices in their care. However, activities for people to take part in were limited; the home was in the process of recruiting an activities coordinator. Staff responded to people in a timely way. People and their families were involved in decisions about their care. They knew how to give feedback or raise concerns and said any issues they had raised had been dealt with quickly. People’s wishes for their care at the end of their lives was explored. Governance systems were in place and any actions identified had been completed. However, the audits had not identified the lack of cleaning in the dining room we saw. The management team were visible. Staff enjoyed working at the home and felt supported to give feedback. Feedback from partners was positive.

Updated 2 October 2024

People and relatives were positive about the quality of their care. They felt safe and were involved in planning their care. People were able to make their own choices and were encouraged to do things for themselves as much as they could. They said, “I think it’s a good place to help [Name] keep their independence, the staff don’t automatically do everything for them and let them make choices about things.” People and relatives said the staff team treated them kindly and maintained their dignity. They said, “The staff are lovely, friendly and very nice.” They said there were sometimes some activities, but they did not always want to join in. One person said, “They sometimes do an activity. I join in now and then.” People said they enjoyed the food and had a choice of meals. A relative said, “[Name] eats well and has maintained their weight which is good.” People and relatives felt able to complain and were confident action would be taken and improvements would be made. A relative said, “If I have any issues they do get dealt with pretty quickly.” Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We made observations throughout the assessment to assess whether they received good care. This approach showed on the first day staff gained people’s consent for support but were not always speaking with people when providing the support. On the second day staff were fully engaged with people when supporting them, having conversations and checking they were happy with their support. People and relatives told us the staff were caring. One person told us, ““The staff are caring and very good.” Visiting professionals were also positive about the staff team and the support they provided. People knew staff and leaders well. One person told us, “[Registered Manager] is nice, very easy to talk to if I need to” and a relative said, “The managers are lovely. Any questions get answered quickly.”