Chilmington House

Chilmington House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care support for up to seven people who have a learning disability and sometimes additional physical disabilities. The service is provided in a single story building to promote accessibility.

Rating at last inspection.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good.

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’s rights and freedom were protected by staff who also advocated strongly with external services to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were kept safe by a staff team who understood how to do this and had attended relevant training. Health and safety and risk assessment systems also helped ensure people and staff were as safe as possible.

Staff were caring, involved people and their representatives in decision making and listened to their wishes. Relationships between people and staff were relaxed, positive and respectful. People’s dignity and privacy were promoted by the staff.

The service responded positively and in a timely way where people’s needs changed. People had access to a range of appropriate activities and events to reflect their culture, gender and interests.

The views of people and their representatives were listened to and the service took action to address any points raised.

The service was well led by a consistent management team who had effective system to monitor its day-to-day operation and the approach of staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

We found that people were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean, well maintained and adapted to meet their needs. Regular servicing and maintenance was carried out and we saw records which confirmed that.

Where people's health had changed, the home had sought the advice of external healthcare specialists appropriately to maintain their wellbeing and safety. We saw that the staff were aware of the needs of the individuals they were supporting.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the home liaised effectively with the local authority DoLS team and had made applications as appropriate.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people's needs were met by a knowledgeable staff team who were well trained and supported. People's needs had been effectively met and any changes were referred to management and acted upon. We saw that the people supported enjoyed positive relationships with the staff. The family members we spoke with told us the home met people's needs effectively and provided them with a fulfilling lifestyle. Relatives also praised the home's management of health needs and said they were kept informed and consulted appropriately. One relative said: 'X is extremely lucky to be there.' and another told us: 'X has improved so much since being there.'

Is the service caring?

We saw staff working in a caring and inclusive way while supporting people. They enabled people to make decisions and choices and understood their non-verbal communication. One of the relatives told us the staff were: 'brilliant at reading X's body language.' We saw that staff gave people the time they needed to make these choices and to do things such as eating their meal in an unhurried way. The relatives we spoke with told us the staff were very caring. Two gave the example of staff remaining with people when in hospital to ensure their needs continued to be met. One relative said: 'X adores the staff and now smiles much more than in the past.'

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's care plans and other documents recorded people's needs and any changes in these over time. We saw that the home responded promptly to any changes and sought appropriate advice or healthcare support.

Care was provided based on people's known and indicated wishes and preferences. People had access to meaningful activities and the community. In one situation, where a person's access to an activity had been curtailed due to an incident, an alternative location was found to ensure this activity could continue. One of the relatives we spoke with told us that staff brought the person they supported to their home to visit them. The three relatives we spoke with all said their views had been sought through regular surveys, during care reviews and at other times where issues had arisen.

Is the service well-led?

We found that the home provided consistent care to people and was well-managed. There were clear lines of responsibility and people were supervised and supported in their roles. A range of audit and monitoring systems were used by the management team to maintain an effective overview of the home's operation. The management undertook out-of-hours monitoring visits and we saw that action had been taken to respond where issues had been identified. The views of people's advocates and relatives were sought and acted upon. One relative told us: 'I have no concerns at all.'

People had access to a range of activities and opportunities within the home and in the community. Their healthcare needs were met and the home liaised well with external healthcare professionals.

Individuals in the home were safe and the home acted in an advocacy role to promote and safeguard people's best interests.

Medication was well managed in the home and records were properly maintained. Staff had received training to manage the medication and followed the procedures.

Effective recruitment and selection procedures were in place to check the suitability of applicants and staff all received an induction.

The manager had effective systems to monitor the operation of the home. The manager had sought the views of people's representatives and involved healthcare professionals, about the care provided. Complaints were taken seriously and thoroughly investigated