CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chantry House Residential and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and monitored, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff on the inspection days to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff sought consent and supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act. People received suitable food, healthcare and support from trained staff.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw people being supported discreetly, with their privacy, dignity, independence and choices maintained.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans focused mainly on medical needs and did not always show people's routines, preferences, mood or wellbeing. The home had begun improving its records, but the changes were not fully implemented.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had quality checks and action plans to identify and address problems. Staff understood their roles, and the home worked with relatives and other professionals.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Chantry House Residential and Nursing Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found care records and person-centred support still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the home was rated Requires Improvement in 2019. Inspectors visited on 5 October 2022 and gave detailed feedback on 14 October 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved and was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were kind, and the home was clean. People could receive visitors, and staff supported healthcare needs, food and personal care.
The main weakness was that care records focused too much on medical tasks. They did not always show people's preferences, mood, wellbeing or how they spent their day. The home had started changing its records, but the new approach was not yet fully in place. Staffing arrangements, including agency staff and time spent completing records, also needed close monitoring.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Responsive was rated Requires Improvement, meaning people's needs were not always fully met in a personalised way.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff responded promptly to call bells. Risks were regularly assessed, with equipment and plans used to reduce harm.
“People told us they felt safe in the home. They said staff were attentive and they were supported to use mobility aids and equipment safely.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw personal care being provided discreetly and people's independence being encouraged.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. One person told us, "The staff are very good, loving and not spooky like where I was before.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were received as prescribed, records and stocks matched, and staff explained medicines and sought consent before giving them.
“Medicines systems were well organised with people receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff understood people's health needs and sought professional help promptly when people became unwell. Communication with professionals had improved.
“Communication has improved between professionals promoting [people] receiving a holistic treatment plan and ensuring their current and ongoing needs are going to be met.” from the report
Welcoming visitors
Visitors could visit freely and relatives said they were kept informed. The home supported visits safely in line with government guidance.
“People were supported to have visits from their friends and family safely and in line with government guidance.” from the report
Staffing arrangements needed monitoring
needs fixingFeedback about staffing was mixed. Agency staff were used to cover gaps, and staff said this could make shifts harder and reduce continuity.
“Agency staff were used to fill gaps in staffing and some permanent staff shared that this was not always ideal as they had to explain or supervise them with certain tasks.” from the report
Too much time on daily records
needs fixingInspectors saw staff spending considerable time completing records instead of engaging meaningfully with people. Managers were reviewing the process.
“We noted that staff spent considerable time during the day completing daily records which detracted them from interacting and engaging meaningfully with people.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure care plans record each person's preferred routines, mood, wellbeing and meaningful activities?
- 02What progress has been made with the new care plans and daily records since the inspection?
- 03How many permanent staff are normally on each shift, and how often are agency staff used?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's needs and preferences?
- 05How will you reduce the time staff spend completing daily records so they can engage with residents?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that considered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it followed the previous Requires Improvement rating and earlier regulatory breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 2022 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, May 2019
Chantry House Residential and Nursing Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and better staffing, but serious gaps in risk management, consent, care planning and leadership.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 24 April 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care, checked three people's records, and reviewed medicines, storage, audits and management information.
The home had improved in some areas since the previous inspection. Staffing, training, cleanliness, the building and people's day-to-day treatment had improved. People generally said staff were kind, they felt safe, and the food was good.
Important problems remained. Risk assessments and care plans were often incomplete or inaccurate. Covert medicines were not properly authorised. People were not always involved in planning their care, and there were no meaningful activities on the inspection day. The management team's improvement work was not yet fully in place.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The home remained in breach of four regulations, and CQC required an action plan and said it would continue to monitor the service.
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors that staff treated them well. Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and respectfully, and giving them everyday choices.
“I like the staff and the staff are kind and compassionate to me.” from the report
Staffing had improved
Inspectors found improvements in staffing since the previous inspection. People and staff said there were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment was continuing.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Food and health support
People generally liked the food and had choices. Staff supported people who needed help to eat and drink, and referrals were made to health professionals when needed.
“People's specific dietary needs and preferences were catered for and a choice of meals were available.” from the report
Cleaner and improved surroundings
The home was clean, furnishings that had caused concern had been cleaned or replaced, and some areas had been redecorated.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made, some areas had been re-decorated and new furniture had been purchased.” from the report
Risk records were unreliable
seriousSome falls and pressure sore assessments were incomplete or inaccurate. This meant staff might not have clear information about how to reduce risks to people.
“Where they had been completed they were not always accurate.” from the report
Covert medicines were not properly authorised
seriousThe home did not follow the required process when medicines were hidden in food. Records and staff knowledge did not always show what happened when people initially refused medicines.
“Where people received their medicines covertly, for example, hidden in food, appropriate procedures had not been followed to ensure this was done lawfully.” from the report
Care plans did not reflect people's needs
seriousCare plans did not always describe people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs, their preferences or the care actually being given. People and relatives were not consistently involved.
“Care plans did not always reflect people's individual physical, mental, emotional and social needs or, in some cases, the care actually being provided.” from the report
Few meaningful activities
needs fixingThe activities co-ordinator post was vacant, and inspectors saw no meaningful activities taking place. People spent much of the day asleep in communal areas.
“On the day of our inspection we observed people spent a lot of time asleep in chairs in communal areas with no meaningful activities taking place.” from the report
Weak oversight of improvement
seriousAudits did not identify all the problems inspectors found. The improvement plan was not fully implemented, and some actions had no timescale.
“Governance processes were not always effective in identifying concerns.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that falls, pressure sore and mobility risk assessments are complete, accurate and followed by staff?
- 02If medicines are given covertly, what authorisation, mental capacity assessment and best-interests process is followed, and how is each dose recorded?
- 03How are people and relatives involved in writing and reviewing care plans, including recording likes, dislikes and end-of-life wishes?
- 04What regular activities are now available, and who is responsible for making sure they reflect each person's interests?
- 05Which actions from the home improvement plan have been completed, and how do your audits now check that care plans and incidents are accurate?
This was an unannounced, scheduled inspection that looked at all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was also Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 May 2019 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 House Residential and Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Chantry House Residential and Nursing Home →
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Chantry House Residential and Nursing Home →
- October 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.