CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chaseways
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The inspectors only looked at infection prevention as part of this targeted inspection. They were assured that the home had controls for visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider acted on concerns and had systems to gather views. However, inspectors found that communication skills and respect for people's choices were not always strong enough.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection controls in place but concerns about communication and respecting people's choices.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 02 March 2021. One inspector spoke with four people, three care staff and others involved with the home. Records about care, surveys, training and quality checks were also reviewed.
The inspectors found that infection prevention measures were in place. They were assured about visitors, social distancing, PPE, testing, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks. People were generally supported to make choices, gain skills and become more independent.
There were concerns about staff confidently using British Sign Language. One person became frustrated when staff could not follow their communication. Inspectors also saw staff mislead a person into getting dressed when they did not want to.
The home was not given new ratings because this inspection was targeted. The overall rating remains Requires Improvement from the previous inspection. The Safe and Well-led questions were inspected but not rated, and a full review is planned at the next comprehensive inspection.
Infection control
The home had infection prevention measures covering visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Choice and independence
Support generally focused on people's choices, inclusion, independence and developing new skills.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Open improvement
The provider investigated concerns, gathered feedback and put actions in place when improvements were needed.
“The management team had been open and transparent where lessons and improvement were required.” from the report
Communication needs
needs fixingStaff were not confident using British Sign Language. This made it harder for one person to communicate and caused frustration.
“Whilst a person was trying to communicate through signing the staff found it difficult to follow the conversation. This caused the person to become frustrated.” from the report
Respecting choice
needs fixingInspectors saw staff mislead a person into getting dressed when the person did not want to. This raised concerns about respecting the person's wishes.
“We observed staff mislead a person to get dressed when they did not want to by suggesting they were going to go out for a drive.” from the report
- 01What further training and support have staff received to communicate confidently using British Sign Language?
- 02How do you make sure people are not misled or pressured when they do not want to do something?
- 03What actions were taken after inspectors saw a person being encouraged to get dressed by being told they would go out?
- 04How do you check that people's rights, choices and communication needs are reflected in everyday support?
- 05When will the next comprehensive inspection take place, given that the previous overall rating remains Requires Improvement?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about human rights, with infection control also reviewed; it did not assess all five key questions or change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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, November 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; improvements ended special measures, but restrictive practices and leadership still needed further work.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 27 October 2020 and completed inspection activity on 9 November 2020. They spoke with a person using the service, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home had improved since its previous inspection. Risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements, medicines records and infection control were generally better. Staff were described as kind, patient and more person-centred. Restraint had reduced significantly, and leaders were open to feedback and learning.
However, some risk plans still used restrictions that were not the least restrictive option. End of life care plans had not yet been developed with people. Staff surveys showed mixed views about whether staff felt respected as a team. The ratings for Safe and Well-led were both Requires Improvement.
The previous rating was Inadequate, published in July 2020, and the home had been in Special Measures. The provider was no longer breaching regulations and the home was no longer in Special Measures, but the overall rating was still Requires Improvement.
Reduced restraint
Staff had better knowledge of people's needs and restraint incidents had reduced significantly. Inspectors saw staff supporting people safely and patiently.
“Staff had completed positive behaviour support training which had helped them understand how to support people in a positive way.” from the report
Safeguarding improved
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Safeguarding concerns were addressed openly and relatives said incidents had been dealt with properly.
“Where safeguarding issues had been identified these were addressed and the management team were open and willing to make changes and share lessons learnt.” from the report
Medicines were managed well
Staff were trained to give medicines safely. Records were generally clear and medicines were given when needed.
“Overall, medicine administration records (MAR) had been completed correctly and were clear to read.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infection during the pandemic, including PPE, testing and hygiene.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
More open leadership
The new management structure had improved communication. Leaders were visible, available and willing to act on feedback.
“The management changes gave staff and professionals confidence the service was being led effectively.” from the report
Restrictions remained
needs fixingSome risk plans did not consider the least restrictive option. This could limit people's independence and control over their lives, although managers were reviewing these arrangements.
“Risk management plans did not always consider the least restrictive option, and sometimes this limited people's control over their lives and their independence.” from the report
End of life planning incomplete
needs fixingEnd of life care plans had not yet been developed with people. The manager said this work was planned.
“However, end of life care plans needed to be developed with people.” from the report
Mixed staff views
minorStaff survey feedback showed a division in views about feeling respected as a team. Managers had started work to improve the culture and encourage staff to speak up.
“Feedback from staff surveys suggested there was a division in views, in feeling respected as a team.” from the report
Some advice was not sought quickly
needs fixingA professional said the home had identified a risk but had not sought advice from family and other professionals as quickly as expected.
“The professional explained that if they had more of an holistic approach with contacting family and other professionals this would have helped with having a quicker outcome for the person they were supporting.” from the report
- 01Which restrictive practices are still in place, and what is the timetable for reviewing them with health professionals and the person involved?
- 02How are you making sure people are involved in creating their end of life care plans?
- 03What action has been taken to address the mixed staff views about feeling respected as a team?
- 04How do staff make sure family members and other professionals are contacted quickly when a new risk is identified?
- 05What improvements have been made since the home left Special Measures, and how are you checking that they are being sustained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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.
Every inspection of Chaseways
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.