CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chantry Gardens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff understood safeguarding, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines records had no gaps. They also noted previous medicines errors, although no one was harmed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessed health and care needs, trained staff supported them, and they had access to healthcare. One person's DoLS authorisation had expired while the home waited for the local authority to review it.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to develop everyday skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's routines, communication needs and preferences. People could follow their interests, attend activities and use easy-read or pictorial information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, regular audits and action plans. They reported positive changes since the new manager started and found that people, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with an expired DoLS authorisation and some medicines errors noted.
This was a planned inspection on 3 January 2020. One inspector spoke with all three people living at the home, three staff members and the manager. They also reviewed care plans, health plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records. Relatives and healthcare professionals gave feedback after the visit.
The home supported three people with a learning disability and/or autism. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, reviewed risk plans and good medicines records. People were supported to make choices, build independence, prepare food, access the community and follow their interests.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found people's needs were being met and the home was consistently managed. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was published on 1 June 2017.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in daily tasks and develop skills. Staff helped people take part in shopping, cooking and kitchen activities.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded to their needs and anxiety. Inspectors observed positive interactions and respect for privacy.
“People were being supported by staff who knew them and treated them with respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, communication methods and preferences. Information was also available in easy-read and pictorial formats.
“People had their own care plan which was person-centred and recorded how people wanted their care to be provided.” from the report
Positive leadership
The home had regular audits, action plans and meetings. Inspectors reported a positive change in the culture since the new manager started.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Expired DoLS authorisation
needs fixingOne person's DoLS authorisation had expired. The manager had contacted the local authority and was waiting for a review, but the authorisation was not current at the inspection.
“People had a DoLS authorisation in place, but it had expired.” from the report
Previous medicines errors
needs fixingThe report says there had been some medicines errors and incidents. No one was harmed, and the manager reviewed practice and made changes to try to prevent this happening again.
“There had been some medicines errors and incidents which had been reported to the local authority.” from the report
End of life planning still developing
minorSome people had started recording their end of life wishes, but the manager said this work was still being developed and staff confidence in these conversations needed attention.
“The registered manager told us this was an area which they were developing with staff.” from the report
- 01What happened after the DoLS authorisation expired, and has the new authorisation now been granted?
- 02What medicines errors occurred, and what changes were made to prevent them happening again?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's end of life wishes are recorded and kept up to date?
- 04What progress has been made with the planned garden improvements?
- 05How will my relative be involved in reviews, house meetings and decisions about their daily support?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and looking at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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, June 2017
Chantry Gardens is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing and personal activities needed attention.
This was an announced inspection on 17 March 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, an agency worker and the manager. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and other management records, and observed care, lunch and medicines being given.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments and health care were managed safely. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and respect, supported choice and independence, and provided activities and community links.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors noted that the home had not always had its full staffing level and that a high number of different agency workers could unsettle people. They also found that activities were not always matched closely enough to individual interests, although the home was taking action.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Records showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“The ordering, storage and disposal of medicines was well managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence in everyday activities.
“Dignity and respect is all about giving people the opportunity to make their own choices and not to make assumptions.” from the report
Open management
The manager was available and approachable. Staff, relatives and people using the service said they could raise concerns and had confidence in the management.
“The registered manager was accessible and approachable throughout our inspection.” from the report
Unfamiliar agency staff
needs fixingThe home had used many different agency workers over the previous six weeks. Inspectors said this could unsettle people who were not familiar with them.
“This meant there was a risk many different staff entering the home who people were not familiar with, may lead to them feeling unsettled.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingThe manager said the home had not had its full staffing level for about three months and some shifts had not always been covered at the assessed level. Recruitment was under way.
“The registered manager told us they had not had their full quota of staff for approximately three months” from the report
Personal activities
needs fixingActivities were available, but they were not always tailored to people's individual interests. Staffing and transport arrangements could prevent some trips or one-to-one activities.
“Whilst these activities were available, they were not always geared towards people's own personal interests.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are now in post, and are all shifts covered at the staffing level assessed as necessary?
- 02How do you make sure agency workers are familiar with each person's care plan, routines and communication needs?
- 03What individual activities and short-term or long-term goals are now planned for my relative?
- 04How often can people take part in activities outside the local community, and what happens when staffing or minibus availability prevents this?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' feedback used to check that the action plan has been completed?
This was an announced inspection that considered all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 2017 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 Chantry Gardens
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.