CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Champions Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but weaknesses remained in effectiveness and management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 December 2019. Two inspectors spoke with five people and four staff. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files and management records.
People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff supported people with activities, healthcare, food, independence and personal choices. The home was clean, staffing levels were sufficient, and people appeared relaxed and happy.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Effective and well-led were rated Requires Improvement because some care records, supervision arrangements, medicine checks, audits and feedback processes were not consistent.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in 2018. It was no longer in breach of regulations, but it remained Requires Improvement for the second inspection in a row.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind, and inspectors saw people looking relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff supported privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People told us they were treated with kindness.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, learn skills and do more for themselves. They could choose activities, meals and how to spend their time.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to attend clubs, dancing, horse riding and other activities. Staff also helped people keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported and encouraged to access a range of activities of their choosing.” from the report
Medicine checks
seriousInspectors found some out-of-date medicine for one person. The manager said it had not been given after its expiry date, but the checking system had not identified it.
“We did however, find some out of date medicine for one person which was taken as and when required (PRN).” from the report
Response after a fall
seriousAfter one person fell and showed signs of pain, staff gave pain relief but did not also call a doctor as required. The manager discussed the issue with the staff involved.
“Staff had only given them pain relief rather than calling the doctor in addition.” from the report
Care records and end of life wishes
needs fixingPeople's wishes about end of life care had not been explored. Inspectors also found a lack of individual capacity assessments for constant supervision, although these were completed immediately after the inspection.
“Staff had not explored people's wishes or choices in this respect.” from the report
Management audits and feedback
needs fixingAudits did not always find problems such as out-of-date medicine or missing care plans. Records also did not show that people's suggestions or families' feedback had been acted on.
“These did not always pick up the shortfalls we had identified for example, the out of date medicines and lack of end of life care plans.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked for expiry dates and counted against the records?
- 02What procedure must staff follow if someone falls or appears to be in pain?
- 03Have you now recorded each person's end of life wishes and choices?
- 04How often do staff receive supervision, and is the schedule now up to date?
- 05How do you record people's and families' feedback, and show what was changed as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care and premises, covering all five CQC questions, after the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2020 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
Champions Place was rated Requires Improvement; it had left Special Measures, but medicines and consent still breached regulations.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive inspection visit on 6 December 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, the manager and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, complaints and audits.
The home had improved significantly since its previous inspection in May 2018, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. People appeared more relaxed and happy. Staffing, safeguarding, activities, person-centred care and management had all improved.
There were still important problems. Some medicines were not given as prescribed, legal steps about consent were incomplete, care plans did not include all necessary information, and quality checks did not always identify problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Responsive care was rated Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in Special Measures, but inspectors required further improvement and found two continued breaches of regulations.
More settled and positive care
Inspectors saw a clear change from the previous inspection. People appeared happier, more relaxed and more involved in everyday life.
“We found significant improvements in the service overall and it was clear from people's behaviours that they were more relaxed and happy living at Champions Place.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff gave people attention, respected their privacy and supported them in a gentle and individual way.
“People were cared for by staff who showed a kind, caring, attentive and respectful approach towards them.” from the report
More staff and more choice
Staffing levels had increased, allowing people to go out in the evenings and at weekends. People were supported to choose activities and take part in daily routines.
“Staffing levels had increased since our last inspection, giving people the opportunity to participate in activities in the evening and at weekends.” from the report
Improved person-centred planning
Care plans included information about people's histories, interests, likes and dislikes, and how staff should support them.
“Care was much more person-centred. People had 'about me' information in their care plans.” from the report
Better management systems
The manager introduced complaints, notification, audit and governance processes and worked with outside agencies to improve the home.
“Since our inspection in May 2018, the registered manager had introduced a complaints process, notified us of significant incidents, introduced audit and governance processes and worked closely with the local authority and quality assurance team.” from the report
Medicines were not always given as prescribed
seriousOne person missed their morning medicine on four occasions because they did not get up at the recorded time. Handwritten changes on medicines records were also not always double-checked.
“The lack of robust medicines management processes was a continued breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Incomplete consent decisions
seriousSome capacity assessments did not have the required best-interests discussions. This included people who needed constant supervision outside the home.
“The failure to follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was a continued breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe medicines audit did not identify the missed doses. An infection control audit also did not record some bathroom defects.
“We spoke with the registered manager about the auditing process and the need to ensure it was robust.” from the report
Some care plan information was missing
needs fixingThe new care plan format was still being developed. Inspectors said information about people's end-of-life care was not included.
“Although there was still some information lacking people's care plans, for example, in relation to their end of life care, the registered manager told us their priority had been focussing on improving and reviewing the plans overall.” from the report
Mealtime arrangements needed review
minorSome people waited before they could serve themselves lunch, partly because of medicines administration. The food trolley was not heated, so food might not have stayed hot for long.
“The trolley was not a hot-trolley which meant food would not have stayed hot for long.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every medicine is given at the prescribed time, including when someone gets up later than usual?
- 02How are capacity assessments and best-interests decisions recorded for people who need supervision or support with decisions?
- 03What changes have you made to make medicines and infection-control audits identify problems reliably?
- 04Have all care plans been updated to include end-of-life wishes and other information staff need?
- 05What has been done to improve the timing and temperature of meals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking progress since the May 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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 Champions Place
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodCaring: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.