Archived: Chelsea Court Place

Updated 9 February 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 13 November 2017. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked information that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) held about the service including any notifications sent to CQC by the provider. The notifications provide us with information about changes to the service and any significant concerns reported by the provider.

During the visit we spoke with two people, two relatives and two people’s visitors. We also spoke with the head of guest services, the activities coordinator, three care workers, the chef, a nurse, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We reviewed the records of six people’s care files, including their medicines records. We toured the building and observed the care and support people received in communal areas. In addition to this we checked seven staff recruitment and training records, quality assurance audits and some of the records relating to the management of the service.

After the inspection we spoke with a consultant psychiatrist, the GP, physiotherapist and podiatrist to obtain further information about the service and the support people received.

Updated 9 February 2018

This was the first inspection of the service and the inspection was unannounced. Chelsea Court Place 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 care home accommodates 15 people living with dementia in one adapted building.

The home is purpose-built and designed for people living with different stages of dementia. The home provides 24-hour nursing care and is situated in the centre of Chelsea, with access to close transportation links and local amenities. People who use the service pay privately for their care and the provider offers bespoke services. At the time of the inspection there were 15 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The building was designed to look like a hotel to reflect the experiences of people who had travelled and lived in hotels, as part of their previous occupation and/or social interests. People were referred to as 'members' and their rooms were referred to as 'suites'. People were provided with guest services and a unique mealtime experience. They were served beautifully presented meals by a head waiter and food cooked by an award winning chef. There was enough food and drink and people could eat the meals they wanted at the time they chose.

People had individual risk assessments detailing the risks to their health and safety, based on an assessment of their needs. Staff were familiar with risks relating to people’s wellbeing and the systems in place to keep people safe from abuse.

Background checks were completed to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people; however some references were not authenticated. Each person was supported by two members of staff regardless of their care needs and there was enough staff deployed to help people when they asked for support.

Good systems were in place to ensure the safe administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Staff followed infection control protocols and people had access to personalised laundry and housekeeping services.

Staff had completed an induction, training and supervision to further develop their skills and knowledge. Care plans evidenced people’s diverse needs and records were stored electronically and updated at the time people received care. Relevant external health practitioners had access to these. People were supported to live healthier lives and received regular visits from health professionals. Advanced care wishes were written in people’s care plans on how people wished to be supported at the end of their life.

Staff sought people’s consent before carrying out care and support and they understood and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were looked after by staff who were kind and caring and their relatives and visitors were made to feel welcome when they spent time with their family members in the home. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy and were committed to ensuring people felt valued by giving them the choice to make day to day decisions about their care.

People took part in activities and events that were stimulating and personalised to their needs to help them continue to lead fulfilled lives. They were asked their views and suggestions to help shape the services and knew how to raise a complaint, and were confident any concerns they raised would be resolved.

People, their relatives and health professionals spoke favourably about the management of the home. There was a range of quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve service provision. The provider worked in partnership with other services to ensure members of the public could access their facilities and sought new ways to develop changes to meet the needs of the people they supported.

We have made one recommendation about information being accessible to people in an easy read format.