CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chamarel
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, PPE, testing, social distancing, admissions and possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements at the home.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than carrying out a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors found effective arrangements for visitors, enough personal protective equipment, good cleaning and suitable infection control policies. They were assured that the home was managing testing, shielding, social distancing, admissions and possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
The home had processes for visitors entering safely and used telephone contact with families, friends and healthcare professionals to reduce infection risks.
“There were effective process and systems in place for visitors entering the service, in line with the government guidance.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found enough protective equipment, which staff used effectively. They were also assured that testing was available for residents and staff.
“There was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available and staff used this effectively.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had good cleaning arrangements and was clean, free from smells and without clutter.
“Good cleaning regimes were in place. The service was clean, odour and clutter free.” from the report
Planning for infection risks
Risk assessments covered people and staff at increased risk of infection, including whether they could isolate.
“Individual risk assessments were in place for any person or staff member at an increased risk of infection which included being able to isolate.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 19 March 2021?
- 02What are the current rules for visiting, and how do you manage visitors who may have an infection?
- 03How do you make sure there is enough PPE and that staff use it safely?
- 04How do you test residents and staff for infections, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 05Can I see your most recent full inspection report or current ratings for care, staffing, medicines and leadership?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still being developed.
This was the home’s first inspection since it was registered in October 2017. It was unannounced and took place on 30 October and 8 November 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with six people, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, training, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable recruitment checks and staff who understood safeguarding and mental capacity rules.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. They helped plan their care, chose meals and activities, and were supported to keep relationships, attend services and access health care. The home had clear management arrangements, although its audit process was still being made more detailed.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff speak respectfully, give people time to respond and promote their privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by caring, kind and respectful staff who knew each person and their individual needs well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were built around each person's needs, goals, routines and preferences. People were involved in planning and reviewing their support.
“Each person had a care plan that was specifically designed around their needs, goals and aspirations.” from the report
Choice and meaningful activities
People chose meals, daily activities and outings. They were also supported with community activities, holidays and personal goals.
“People took part in activities that encouraged social involvement and wellbeing and had choice and control over what they wanted to do each day.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels were considered sufficient, and extra staff could be used for planned activities or health appointments. Medicines were given by trained staff and checked.
“People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed to be competent to administer medicines.” from the report
Good communication and leadership
Staff said communication was good and that they could share ideas. The manager worked alongside staff and knew people and their support needs well.
“Staff told us that staff meetings were held where they could discuss anything they wanted to and ideas were generated to improve people's support.” from the report
Audit process still developing
minorThe provider and manager were working to make audits more detailed and to track improvements more formally. An action plan included reviewing support plans.
“As a new provider the provider and registered manager told us they are working on improving the audit process to ensure these provide a detailed analysis of what they have looked at and what improvements need to be made.” from the report
Some lounge furniture looked worn
minorSome furniture in the main lounge was described as shabby. People were being involved in choosing replacements.
“Some furniture in the main lounge was due to be replaced as it was looking shabby.” from the report
- 01Has the more detailed audit process described in the report now been put in place?
- 02Has the planned review of all support plans been completed, and how are families involved?
- 03Has the shabby lounge furniture been replaced, and were people involved in choosing it?
- 04How are staffing levels increased when people have planned activities or health appointments?
- 05How are people's personal goals, activities and holiday choices reviewed over time?
This was the first comprehensive inspection since registration and covered all five CQC questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Chamarel
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 October 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.