CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chard Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff. Medicine systems had improved significantly, but past errors had meant people did not always receive medicines when needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so no current rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report, so no current rating was given. Inspectors did report that people received kind and compassionate care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication support met people's individual needs. People were supported to maintain relationships, go out and take part in activities, although some formal care reviews had been delayed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and the culture of the home had improved after a period of instability. The provider had an improvement plan, with 16 actions in progress and 2 not yet started at the time of inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Chard Manor is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and recent improvements, but there had been medicine errors and some care reviews were delayed.
The unannounced inspection involved a visit, conversations with people, relatives and staff, observations of care, and checks of care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff records and quality reports. The home supported 10 people with autism, learning disabilities and/or physical disabilities.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's communication needs, including through sign language, and people were again taking part in activities and going out into the community.
The home had previously had problems with medicines, staff changes and management instability. Inspectors found these areas had improved, although there were still a few gaps in medicine temperature records and some formal care reviews had been delayed.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. The report says the overall rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection, published in April 2019, because the home no longer met the threshold for Outstanding. It did not describe this as a serious decline in standards.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences and needs. Staff supported people to lead their own care and make choices.
“People received personalised care and support built around their needs and wishes.” from the report
Communication
Staff used pictures, gestures, objects and sign language to understand what people wanted. Recent sign language training had helped more people communicate their wishes.
“The training in, and improved use of, sign language by staff had been particularly beneficial.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had resumed regular activities and routines. They went out for swimming, sailing, shopping, bike rides, walks and meals.
“People went swimming, sailing, shopping, bike riding, for walks and meals out.” from the report
Improving leadership
Inspectors found the home was steadily improving after management and staffing changes had caused instability. Relatives and staff had renewed confidence in the home.
“The service had been steadily improving since the current registered manager had been in post.” from the report
Previous medicine errors
seriousStaff had not always followed safe medicine processes in the past. Inspectors found significant improvement and said errors were now rare, but people had previously missed medicines when they needed them.
“This had led to errors being made over a period of time. This meant people did not always have their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Delayed care reviews
needs fixingSome relatives said formal reviews of care had not taken place for some time. The report does not say that every person's review was delayed.
“However, some relatives told us formal reviews had been delayed.” from the report
Medicine temperature records
minorMost medicine checks had been completed, but there were two or three gaps in the temperature record for June.
“There were two or three gaps in June's temperature record, but other checks had been completed.” from the report
Outstanding improvement work
needs fixingThe home had a clear improvement plan, but not all actions were complete at the inspection. Sixteen actions were in progress and two had not yet started.
“This plan confirmed 16 improvement actions were in progress and 2 had not yet started.” from the report
- 01What changes are now in place to prevent the medicine errors described in the report from happening again?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures checked and how will gaps in the records be prevented?
- 03When will my relative's formal care review take place, and how will the family be involved?
- 04Which of the 16 improvement actions are now complete, and what is the timetable for the 2 actions that had not started?
- 05How will the home maintain the improved staffing, management and team culture described by inspectors?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected in this report and no current ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 2023 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 2019
Chard Manor was rated Outstanding overall, with kind and safe care and especially strong support for independence, activities and good management.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 20 January 2019. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, training and management records.
The home supported 10 people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by well-trained staff, involved in decisions and treated with dignity. Medicines were given safely and people had access to healthcare and a range of activities.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Safe, Effective and Caring were rated Good. Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. The previous overall rating was Good, so this inspection found an improvement.
Independence and choice
Staff supported people to make choices and take more control of everyday life. Risk assessments were used without unnecessarily restricting activities or independence.
“Measures put in place did not restrict people's independence or prevent people from taking part in activities or trying new things.” from the report
Activities and confidence
People took part in varied activities, including sailing, cycling, swimming, gardening and holidays. Staff supported people to build skills and confidence.
“People were supported to participate in a wide range of activities, including sailing, cycling, visits out and holidays.” from the report
Person-centred reviews
Care plan reviews had changed from meetings people rarely attended into celebrations of achievements. People, relatives and professionals were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Care plan review meetings were now a celebration of the person's achievements over the past year.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke very positively about staff. Staff knew people well and encouraged them to be involved in daily tasks while respecting their privacy and dignity.
“People benefit from a settled staff team who know the people living at the home really well and respected people's choices, needs and wants.” from the report
Strong management
The management team carried out regular checks and used action plans when it found shortfalls. People were also involved in quality visits and suggestions for improvement.
“The registered manager and provider had effective systems in place to review the quality of the service provided to people.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were given as prescribed by trained staff whose competence was checked. The manager worked with the GP to reduce some medicines.
“Medicines were administered safely and given as prescribed by the GP.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt the person's care plan and review meetings so they can take part in a way they understand?
- 02Which activities could my relative try, and how would you support them to build confidence and independence?
- 03How will you review my relative's medicines with their GP, including whether any reduction is suitable?
- 04How would you support my relative to keep in contact with family and friends, including visits or video calls?
- 05How do you involve people living in the home in decisions about the garden, activities and other changes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous overall rating of Good was replaced by Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Chard Manor
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.