Archived: Chase Park Neuro Centre

Updated 8 January 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 4 and 7 September 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of an inspector, two experts by experience and a specialist nursing advisor. One expert-by-experience was a person who had personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service for older people and another expert by experience had experience of using a service for younger people with acquired brain injuries and associated conditions. The specialist advisor helped us to gather evidence about the quality of nursing care provided.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service prior to our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send the Care Quality Commission (CQC) within required timescales. We contacted commissioners from the local authorities and health authorities who contracted people’s care. We spoke with the local safeguarding teams. We also contacted health and social care professionals who worked with the service. We received information of concern from these agencies.

During this inspection we carried out observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not communicate with us.

We undertook general observations in communal areas and during mealtimes.

During the inspection we spoke with 22 people who lived at Chase Park, seven relatives, the registered manager, three registered nurses, ten support workers including one senior support worker, two visiting health professionals, a domestic person and three members of catering staff. We observed care and support in communal areas and looked in the kitchen, bathrooms, lavatories and some bedrooms after obtaining people’s permission. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. We looked at care records for 12 people, the recruitment, training and induction records for five staff, seven people’s medicines records, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service and their relatives, the maintenance book, maintenance contracts and the quality assurance audits that the manager had completed.

Updated 8 January 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 4 and 7 September 2015.

We last inspected Chase Park Neuro Centre in October 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the legal requirements in force at the time.

Chase Park Neuro Centre is registered to provide care to 60 people aged 18 years or over. The site is split into two locations, one which provides rehabilitation to people with a neurological condition and one which provides specialist nursing care to people with a neurological condition together with a service user group of older people.

A registered manager was 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.

People said they felt safe. We had concerns however that there were not enough staff on duty to provide safe and individual care to people.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. When new staff were appointed, thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People did not always receive their medicines in a safe way.

Not all areas of the home were clean and well maintained for the comfort of people who used the service. Equipment was not always available to meet people’s needs.

Staff undertook risk assessments where required and people were routinely assessed against a range of potential risks, such as falls, mobility, skin damage and nutrition. However, risks were not all regularly reviewed to reflect current risks to the person.

Staff were provided with training to give them some knowledge and insight into the specialist conditions of people in order to meet their care and support needs. People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Regular staff knew people’s care and support needs. However care records we looked at were not all up to date. They lacked evidence of regular evaluation and review to keep people safe and to ensure all staff were aware of their current individual care and support needs.

People received a varied and balanced diet.

People said staff were kind and caring. However we saw staff did not always interact and talk with people when they had the opportunity. There was an emphasis on task centred care.

There was a programme of entertainment and activities provided by the activities person, however when they were not available, other staff did not provide activities for people to remain stimulated. People we spoke with and relatives said more activities and stimulation needed to be provided for people.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to give their views about the service. A complaints procedure was available.

The home had a quality assurance programme to check the quality of care provided. However, the systems used to assess the quality of the service had not identified all the issues that we found during the inspection to ensure people received individual care that met their needs.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.