Archived: Chandon

Chandon is a supported living service for up to four adults with who require nursing or personal care. It is situated in a residential area of Ashted, Surrey. At the time of inspection, there were four people living at the home. Extensive alterations had been made to the home to assist with peoples mobility support needs. People who live here had a high level of communication and mobility support needs.

There was not a registered manager in post. 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 new manager had started in October 2015, and had begun the application process to become the registered manager for the home.

The home was well decorated and adapted to meet people’s needs. Flooring was smooth and uncluttered to aid with people’s mobility needs. Mobility equipment such as ceiling hoists were in place, as were wide doorways to make it easy for people who used wheelchairs to get through. Even with all the adaptations the home still retained a homely feel and reflected the interests and lives of the people who lived there.

The inspection took place on 10 December 2015 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in March 2013 we had identified no concerns at the home.

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people and relatives. One person gave a wide smile when we asked if they liked living here. A relative said, “It’s the caring, they really do care for people in everything they do.” An advocate said, “The continuity of care is good here, they know my friend and their needs.”

People were safe at Chandon. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there; Although on the morning of our visit there was a short period of time when there were less staff on site than there should have been, due to staff sickness. A relative said, “There are always at least two staff whenever we visit, and we have never had any issues with our family members needs not being met.”

Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks, without restricting people’s freedom. A relative said, “They go out of their way to make life as pleasant as possible.” An advocate said, “I think they manage risk well here, they do have health and safety in mind, but they put what they enjoy doing at the top.” Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, including the agencies that needed to be notified, such as the local authority safeguarding team or the police.

In the event of an emergency people would be protected because there were clear procedures in place to evacuate the building. Each person had a plan which detailed the support they needed to get safely out of the building in an emergency.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines.

Where people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision the provider had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). An appropriate assessment of people’s ability to make decisions for themselves had been completed. Staff were heard to ask people for their permission before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. An advocate said, “They do home cooking here, and my friend looks well on it.” Specialist diets to meet medical or religious or cultural needs were provided where necessary.

People were supported to maintain good health as they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. When people’s health deteriorated staff responded quickly to help people and made sure they received appropriate treatment. People’s health was seen to improve due to the care and support staff gave.

The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. A relative said, “They are very friendly and caring; very welcoming when we visit.” Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff holding people’s hands and sitting and talking with them, even though the people may not have been able to talk back. People looked relaxed and happy with the staff. People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted.

Care plans were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. They gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans. Details such as favourite foods, or choice of toiletries recorded in the care plans matched with what we saw on the day of our inspection.

People had access to activities that met their needs. An advocate said, “My friend has a range of activities and has been on holiday abroad twice this year. They actively look for things they enjoy to do.” A large proportion of the activities were based in the community giving people access to friends and meeting new people. The staff knew the people they cared for as individuals.

People knew how to make a complaint. The policy was in an easy to read format to help people and relatives know how to make a complaint if they wished. No complaints had been received since our last inspection. Staff knew how to respond to a complaint should one be received.

Quality assurance records were kept up to date to show that the provider had checked on important aspects of the management of the home. Records for checks on health and safety, infection control, and internal medicines audits were all up to date. Accident and incident records were kept, and were analysed and used to improve the care provided to people. The senior management from the provider regularly visited the home to give people and staff an opportunity to talk to them, and to ensure a good standard of care was being provided to people.

People had the opportunity to be involved in how the home was managed. Surveys were completed and the feedback was reviewed, and used to improve the service. A relative said, “I really can’t speak more highly of them; I can’t think of anything they could do better.”