CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chapel House Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed. However, water temperatures above the home's own reporting guidelines were regularly recorded without action, which could increase the risk of scalding.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, health care and activities. Capacity and best interest decisions were recorded where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and helpful. People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and have their privacy respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had registered management, regular audits and feedback arrangements. Inspectors found that leaders acted on feedback and worked with health and care professionals to improve care.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Chapel House Care Centre was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a risk from unaddressed high water temperatures.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 and 11 December 2019. The inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew them well. Care was personalised, people were supported to make choices, and the home helped them keep relationships and take part in activities. Medicines were given as prescribed and people were supported with food, health care and end of life wishes.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same as the previous rating, published on 28 April 2018. The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about staffing and personal care, but inspectors found there were enough staff and people were supported promptly.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring, patient and helpful. Inspectors saw that people appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff.
“They are very good, very, very caring, if I need something they sort it” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs and preferences. Staff explained how they adapted care to each person.
“it's looking at that individual and how we can make their life how they want it to be.” from the report
Good medicines support
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff asked for consent and had detailed guidance for medicines given when needed.
“Medicines systems were organised, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Support for relationships and activities
The home supported people to maintain family and community links and offered activities such as exercise classes, religious services and therapy dogs.
“The service maintained links with the local community, this included inviting schools to the home and holding fetes and charity events.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as approachable. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and make changes.
“The service used quality assurance surveys to seek feedback from people, their relatives and staff members.” from the report
High water temperatures were not acted on
needs fixingThe home regularly recorded water temperatures above its own reporting guidelines but did not take action. Inspectors said this could increase the risk of burns or scalds, although the readings were not above Health and Safety Executive guidelines and no burns or scalds had occurred.
“Failure to act on high temperatures could lead to increased risk of scalding.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the inspection to make sure high water temperature readings are acted on promptly?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels remain enough for people's personal care and other support needs?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their communication, cultural, religious and personal preferences?
- 04How are medicines prescribed as needed monitored, including whether they have worked?
- 05How will you record and follow my relative's end of life wishes and treatment decisions?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and included the care, premises and management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, with some concern about staffing on the top floor.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 13 and 14 March 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care files, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines practice, respectful care, support with health needs and activities, and systems that were being used to improve the service.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in January and February 2017. Inspectors said improvements to personalised care and quality checks had been embedded and sustained. A registered manager had recently left, and an interim manager and extra provider support were in place while a replacement was recruited.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked medicines against records and found that people were receiving them as prescribed. Staff supported people in a calm and respectful way.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence. Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions.
“People's dignity was respected by care staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were linked to people's interests, including baking, quizzes, music and community visits. Staff also supported people staying temporarily to regain skills for living at home.
“Activities were tailored to people's individual preferences.” from the report
Improved oversight
The quality assurance systems that had needed further development at the previous inspection were now embedded and used to drive improvements.
“At this inspection we found the quality assurance systems had been fully embedded and were being effectively used to monitor the service being delivered.” from the report
Top-floor staffing
seriousAlthough inspectors found enough staff overall, some staff and relatives felt there were not always enough staff to support people on the top floor. One situation was described as placing a person at potential risk, and the manager was taking action.
“However staff and relatives sometimes felt there was not always enough staff to support people on the top floor of the home.” from the report
Recent manager change
minorThe registered manager had very recently left. An interim manager and additional provider support were in place, but the provider was still recruiting a new manager and supporting them through registration.
“The provider was in the process of recruiting a new manager for Chapel House Care Centre, who they would support through the registration process with CQC.” from the report
- 01How many staff are usually deployed on the top floor during mornings, evenings and busy periods?
- 02What action was taken after staff and relatives raised concerns about a person being at potential risk on the top floor?
- 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of recruiting and registering the new manager?
- 04How are activities matched to my relative's hobbies, interests and abilities?
- 05If my relative stays temporarily, how will you support their rehabilitation and plan their return home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, with inspectors reviewing care, medicines, staffing, records, the environment and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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 Chapel House Care Centre
8 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvement
- March 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 June 2014.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.