Chapel Garth EMI Residential Home

Updated 12 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 19 January 2021 and was announced.

Updated 12 February 2021

About the service:

Chapel Garth provides residential care for up to 33 older people with dementia. People are accommodated on the ground floor and there is an upper floor used exclusively as office space and by staff. The communal areas of the home are accessible to people who use wheelchairs. The home is in Bentley on the outskirts of Doncaster. At the time of our inspection 31 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

At the last inspection, we rated the questions of is the service; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led as ‘good’. At this inspection, we found the question, is the service effective had deteriorated to ‘requires improvement.’ This was because although in practice care staff knew how to care for people in the right way, some of them had not received all the training that the registered person considered to be necessary. Also, staff had not received supervision and appraisal as per the providers policy.

The home needed refurbishment and redecoration to improve the environment. There was an action plan in place which included areas of the home such as communal dining and sitting areas, flooring and lights, which remained in need of decorating. The provider had given the ‘go ahead’ for work to commence

People and relatives told us they felt the service was safe and there were enough staff to support people. New staff members had completed their induction training and had shadowed experienced staff until they felt confident to work alone.

People received their medicines on time and systems used to manage and store medicines were safe. Suitable arrangements been made to promote good standards of hygiene. This included a staff member having the role of ‘infection control champion’.

The provider had introduced newly formatted care plans which the registered manager said would be fully completed for people within the next three months. Risk assessments and care plans seen were up to date and reflective of people's current support needs.

Systems in place ensured the needs of people were identified and respected. People, and those who were important to them, were at the heart of the service and were encouraged to be involved in decisions and developing their support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were provided with a varied diet that met their needs and preferences. They told us they liked the food offered at the home. We saw meals, drinks and snacks were provided throughout the day and these took into consideration people’s individual likes and dislikes.

There was access to medical services if needed and nursing care was delivered by visiting district nurses. Other health professionals provided services to the home and they gave us positive feedback about the standard of care provided by staff at the home.

There was generally a very kind and friendly atmosphere in the home between staff, people who used the service, relatives and visiting healthcare professionals. People told us, “They [staff] are very kind. I don’t have any problems, but I could talk to any of them. They are all so nice,” and “They [staff] are lovely people.”

People were able to choose how they spent their day and were supported to access the local community. Activities organised within the home were regularly reviewed to ensure the programme was what people wanted to do.

All complaints were treated seriously and were investigated by the registered manager. There were no open complaints and the home had received many compliments about the care they provided.

There was a registered manager who had established a positive culture in the service that was focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. Staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. Furthermore, the registered manager and staff were actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and continually improve the quality of the service provided.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published on 13 December 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk