CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chaseley
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good activities, but staffing, safeguarding, records and management needed urgent improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, meals and activities, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management documents.
The home provided nursing and personal care for up to 55 people, with 51 living there at the inspection. It supported people with complex needs, including brain and nervous system conditions, spinal injuries, strokes and multiple sclerosis.
Inspectors found staff were kind and caring. People had varied activities, suitable equipment, food and access to health appointments. However, some safeguarding incidents were not reported, staffing levels caused delays, and care plans and risk information were not always accurate or detailed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring was Good. All five ratings had fallen from Outstanding at the previous inspection, published on 24 August 2018.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as warm, friendly and accepting. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and encouraging independence.
“Everyone talks to each other and treats each other with respect.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered varied activities, including music, pottery, gardening, yoga and outings. Volunteers helped activities continue.
“The programme offered variety and ensured a wide range of stimulating and interesting activities were offered.” from the report
Health and rehabilitation support
People could access GPs and specialist health professionals. Inspectors received positive feedback about therapy and rehabilitation outcomes for people funded for this support.
“The delivery of actual therapies I find to be of a high standard, and the therapists employed, or in some cases sub-contracted, are professional” from the report
Improved support for new staff
New induction and supervision arrangements were introduced. Since April 2019, no newly recruited staff had left.
“Since April 2019 no newly recruited staff had left.” from the report
Safeguarding incidents not reported
seriousIncidents involving possible harm, a person going missing and an altercation were not consistently referred to safeguarding authorities. This increased the risk that concerns were not properly reviewed.
“The systems and processes to prevent and investigate allegations of abuse were not effective.” from the report
Staffing shortages and delays
seriousThere were 9.3 full-time equivalent vacancies, covered by overtime and agency staff. Inspectors saw call bell delays, and people said support could be rushed or unavailable.
“Staff were not always suitably deployed to ensure people's needs were met safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Care plans lacked important detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain how to support communication, emotional needs or behaviours that challenged. Some information was inaccurate or out of date.
“There was a lack of guidance to support people who displayed behaviours that challenged, and some guidance was not accurate.” from the report
Consent records were unclear
needs fixingStaff did not always know who was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Some records about people's capacity conflicted or could not be found.
“One person's care plan had conflicting information about their capacity.” from the report
Complaints records incomplete
needs fixingSome complaints were not investigated fully, and records were missing. This made it difficult to identify patterns or show that all issues had been addressed.
“Complaints were not always thoroughly investigated.” from the report
Weak management checks and records
seriousQuality systems did not identify several problems. Safety certificates, audit information and other records were difficult to locate, and some were incomplete or out of date.
“The provider had not ensured good governance and oversight. Records were not up to date and accurate.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff and agency staff are working on each shift now, especially at weekends and nights?
- 02How do you make sure call bells are answered quickly and that one-to-one care does not leave other people waiting?
- 03How are safeguarding incidents identified, investigated and reported to the local authority and CQC?
- 04How have care plans been updated to cover communication, emotional needs, personal history and behaviours that challenge?
- 05What action has been completed since the inspection to improve complaints records, care records and quality checks?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including the premises and care, prompted by concerns about safeguarding matters not being reported correctly. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Chaseley was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led care, with only a minor gap in accessible information planning.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 22 May 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, watched medicines being given, and reviewed care records, staff files, audits, incident records and action plans.
The home supports up to 55 people with highly complex needs, including brain and nervous system conditions, acquired brain injuries, spinal injuries, strokes and multiple sclerosis. Inspectors found good arrangements for safety and effective care. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, risk assessments, training, nutrition and health care were all managed well.
Care was rated Outstanding because people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and were strongly supported to make choices and build independence. Activities and community links were extensive. The home was also rated Outstanding for being responsive and well-led, with strong management, regular feedback and a clear focus on improving care.
The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection in January 2016. The report identified one minor area for improvement: the home did not have a formal Accessible Information Standard strategy, although staff used specialist communication aids and understood how people expressed themselves.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals, with their dignity, privacy, relationships, beliefs and lifestyle choices respected.
“People were treated with compassion and kindness in all things.” from the report
Building independence
The home supported people to develop practical skills and work towards personal goals, including living more independently.
“The home excelled in helping people maintain or gain further independence.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could take part in varied activities suited to their abilities and interests, including art, gardening, exercise, trips and community events.
“There was an extensive range of activities available which enhanced people's independence and wellbeing.” from the report
Strong leadership
Management actively used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve the home. Staff described an open and supportive working culture.
“There was a robust system of audits and governance in place, enabling constant monitoring of the service and the maintenance of high standards.” from the report
No formal accessible information strategy
minorThe home considered people's communication needs and used specialist aids, but inspectors noted that it did not have a formal Accessible Information Standard strategy.
“although they did not have a formal Accessible Information Standard strategy.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's specific complex health needs, and which staff have training for them?
- 02What communication aids or methods would you use if my relative could not communicate easily?
- 03How would you support my relative's rehabilitation goals and help them maintain or increase independence?
- 04Which activities and community outings could my relative join, based on their abilities and preferences?
- 05How would you involve my family in care planning, reviews and decisions about my relative's care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Chaseley
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.