CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chapel Garth EMI Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus outbreak. It looked at infection prevention and control, rather than giving a full assessment of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing admissions, and following shielding and social distancing rules. They also found the home clean and uncluttered.
Some corridors were narrow, which made ventilation and social distancing more difficult. Staff were taking steps to reduce these risks, and the provider had acted quickly after advice from an infection control specialist.
Clean environment
The home was clean, uncluttered and staff were seen using hand sanitiser frequently.
“The home looked and smelled clean, and was uncluttered.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for protective equipment, testing, admissions, visitors and outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends by phone and online video chats.
“Staff also helped people to stay in touch with their family and friends by phone and on-line face to face chats.” from the report
Quick response to advice
The provider responded positively to advice from an infection control specialist and made changes quickly.
“We also found the regional support manager who supported us with the inspection to be receptive and responsive.” from the report
Narrow corridors
minorSome corridors made ventilation and social distancing more difficult. Staff were taking steps to reduce the risks.
“There were some narrow corridors where ventilation and social distancing posed a challenge.” from the report
- 01How are narrow corridors managed now to maintain ventilation and social distancing?
- 02What changes were made after the infection control specialist nurse's visit?
- 03How often are people using the service and staff tested for coronavirus?
- 04How will the home help my relative keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05How do you manage new admissions and prevent infection outbreaks?
This was a targeted, announced inspection of infection prevention and control; it did not provide a full rating of the home or ratings for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, June 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found training, supervision and parts of the environment needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 29 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, staff files and management information.
The home was rated Good overall and for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were given safely, and people were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
The Effective rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Some staff had not completed required refresher training, and staff supervision and appraisals were behind schedule. Parts of the home also needed refurbishment and redecoration.
The report says legal requirements were met. The home had action plans for training, supervision, appraisals and improvements to the environment, but some of this work was still planned rather than completed.
Safe care and medicines
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“People received their medicines on time and systems used to manage and store medicines were safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people warmly and with respect. They knew people's histories, interests and personal preferences.
“There was generally a very kind and friendly atmosphere in the home between staff, people who used the service, relatives and visiting healthcare professionals.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their day and were supported to follow their interests. Activities included events in the home and trips into the community.
“People had access to a wide range of activities both in the home and in the wider community.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people's needs. Inspectors received positive feedback about communication and the standard of care.
“The service had built up relationships and worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to make sure people received seamless person-centred care.” from the report
Overdue staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed refresher training required by the provider. Six staff were not recorded as completing moving and handling training, and seven had not completed safeguarding training.
“Six staff were not recorded as completing their moving and handling yearly practical refresher training and seven staff had not completed their yearly refresher in safeguarding vulnerable adults.” from the report
Supervision and appraisals behind
needs fixingStaff had not received supervision and appraisals as often as the provider's policy said they should. The home had a plan to catch up over the following months.
“We found staff had not received supervision and appraisal as per the policy.” from the report
Environment needed improvement
minorSome communal areas, flooring and lights needed refurbishment and redecoration. The provider had approved the work, but it had not all been completed at the inspection.
“The home needed refurbishment and redecoration to improve the environment.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the overdue moving and handling and safeguarding refresher training?
- 02Are staff now receiving the four supervision sessions and yearly appraisal set out in the provider's policy?
- 03Which refurbishment and redecoration work has been completed in the communal areas, flooring and lighting?
- 04How are you checking that action plans for training, supervision and the environment are completed on time?
- 05How will you keep us informed about changes in our relative's health, care needs or end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in December 2016 had rated all five questions Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 Chapel Garth EMI Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Chapel Garth EMI Residential Home →
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Chapel Garth EMI Residential Home →
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.