Chesterfield House

Updated 9 January 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Chesterfield House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small and people are often out and we wanted to be sure there would be people at home to speak with us.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since our last inspection and sought feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service and a relative about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with a visiting independent advocate who supported people using the service. We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager, a nurse and two care workers.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and all the medication records. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including staff training, quality audits and minutes of meetings we also reviewed.

Updated 9 January 2020

About the service

Chesterfield House is a care home providing personal and nursing care to six adults under and over 65 years of age with learning disabilities, mental health disorders, or autism.

Chesterfield house accommodates up to six people in one adapted building. The accommodation is arranged over two floors, linked via staircases. The communal areas, including a lounge, dining room and separate sitting room, are on the ground floor along with a kitchen and laundry room. Outside there is an activities/craft room and gardens.

The service has been developed and adapted in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff provided care in a truly person-centred way and they had an excellent and in-depth knowledge and understanding of the diverse needs of the people they cared for. This was evident in the positive relationships staff built with people and the extremely positive outcomes people achieved. People developed much greater independence during their time at the service and were happy and fulfilled.

The services were very flexible and tailored to each individual and their choices. Staff were proactive in identifying new opportunities for people to be involved with and built links with the community. People were encouraged to be socially active and they were involved in local community initiatives and charities. They were supported to maintain their relationships with family and friends. People and their families were fully involved and consulted in such a way that they felt empowered, listened to and valued. People’s care plans were fully reflective of their individual needs and their communication care plans were detailed and comprehensive.

People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. People felt safe and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the people they cared for. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and interventions were put into place to mitigate those risks. Staffing levels were planned to ensure there were sufficient staff with the right skills and experience to provide safe care that was responsive to people’s individual needs. People’s medicines were managed safely and people told us they received their medicines regularly.

Staff were supported to deliver effective care and received training to gain and further develop their knowledge and skills. They received regular supervision and appraisal. People were provided with a healthy and nutritious diet; they told us they were fully involved in deciding the menu and they enjoyed their meals. People were supported to access health services when required and staff sought specialist advice when necessary.

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

People continued to be supported by staff who showed empathy and kindness toward them. They supported people physically and emotionally and gave them confidence to access new experiences and lead fulfilled lives. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.

The service was well-led. The registered manager provided good leadership and was respected by staff. The quality and consistency of care was monitored through the use of audits and the views of staff, people using the service and visitors was sought. Improvements were identified from the results of these activities, to facilitate the continuous improvement of the quality of the service provided.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published June 2017). At this inspection the service remained good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.