Chaston House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found breaches in relation to good governance. The provider's systems and processes for monitoring and improving quality were not always effectively implemented. Records were not always well-maintained or complete. The provider's systems for assessing, monitoring and mitigating risk had not always been operated effectively.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff shared the values and visions of the organisation.

There was low staff turn over and the service was fully staffed. The registered manager worked alongside staff promoting good care practices. There were a range of policies and procedures and staff had access to these.

Staff liked the registered manager and felt supported.

The registered manager did not always demonstrate a good knowledge of legal requirements. They told us they had not accessed recent management training or taken part in learning around changes in legislation or guidance. However, they had a good understanding of the needs of people who lived at the service and provided good quality care to ensure their needs were met.

Staff said they felt supported and included.

There were procedures to help ensure the workforce were well treated and their equality and diversity were respected.

Staff said they knew how to speak up if something went wrong.

There were procedures for staff to speak up and information about who to contact externally if they felt they wanted to raise a concern.

The registered manager had a good knowledge of the service, people living there and staff. However, their governance systems did not always ensure legal requirements were being met.

Care plans, risk assessments and records relating to people's medicines were incomplete. There was not enough detail to show how people's needs had been assessed, planned for or met. Records of staff recruitment and training were unclear, and the provider had not evidenced all the checks they had undertaken for staff. The staff did not always record when incidents happen, how these were responded to or the learning from these. Checks on the environment had not always identified where improvements were needed.

People were supported to access the community. They had regular appointments with external healthcare professionals.

Staff explained they helped people to access other services.

External professionals, including representatives from the local authority, explained the registered manager was good at sharing information about people using the service. However, they also commented that the service did not join in with events organised for local care providers. One professional told us they were trying to encourage links with other registered managers.

The registered manager did not proactively engage with the local authority or other care providers. This meant they were not always able to learn from others, share experiences or keep up to date with changes in guidance, legislation and in the local area.

The registered manager told us they had made improvements since the last inspection. However, they were not able to demonstrate a good awareness of areas where improvements were still required. Once we discussed these areas with the registered manager they agreed to take action to make the required improvements.

Not enough improvements had been made at the service. We identified concerns relating to health and safety, medicines management, infection prevention and control as well as records. In particular, we found that both staff records and records for people using the service did not have enough detail or information.