CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chataway Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good management and no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 July 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, three relatives and staff. They observed care, checked three care records, looked around the home and reviewed records about staffing, medicines, training, incidents and management.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, kind care, regular care reviews and activities that reflected people's interests.
The home supported people to make choices and promoted their dignity and independence. Staff worked with health professionals when needed. The registered manager used feedback, audits and incident reviews to improve care.
The previous overall rating was also Good, published in January 2017. The report says the inspection was planned and based on that previous rating.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff available when people needed support. The home used its own staff team rather than agency staff, supporting consistency.
“There were sufficient staff to provide care to people and they were available when people needed support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were gentle, patient and compassionate. They protected people's privacy, dignity and independence.
“Care was provided with kindness and compassion and people's independence was promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
People's preferences, life histories and important relationships were included in care planning. Care was reviewed to reflect changing needs.
“People's preferences were considered and incorporated in their care plans.” from the report
Strong management
The manager knew the people using the service and worked alongside staff. Feedback and quality checks were used to make improvements.
“The registered manager had a good oversight of the service; they worked alongside staff and knew the people using the service, their relatives and staff well.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's particular mobility needs, and how often are their risk assessments reviewed?
- 02How do you support people who need modified food or specialist diets, and how do you follow advice from health professionals?
- 03If my relative cannot make a particular decision, how do you record the best-interest decision and check that any restrictions are legally authorised?
- 04How would you support my relative's personal interests, activities and contact with family?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's wishes about end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that covered all five CQC questions and looked at both the home and the care provided; the report says the previous overall rating was Good in January 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Chataway Care Home was rated Good overall, but Effective Requires Improvement because staff training and some care records were not consistently strong.
Inspectors visited without notice on 6 December 2016 and returned on 7 December. They spoke with people living there, a relative, staff, the manager and a visiting professional. They reviewed care plans, medicines, staff recruitment and training records, and the home's quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs. Medicines were given as prescribed, staffing levels were suitable, food and healthcare support had improved, and the manager had introduced better checks.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Most staff had limited training, including gaps in safeguarding, moving and handling, infection control, and mental capacity and liberty safeguards. Some care plans did not clearly record people's ability to consent or their involvement in reviews. People also wanted more activities, especially in the evenings.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff knew how to identify and report abuse. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were also found to be suitable.
“People felt safe and staff knew how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly and respectfully. People's privacy and dignity were protected during personal care.
“People were treated kindly and support was provided in a caring and considerate manner.” from the report
Improved food and healthcare
The report says the home had improved its approach to balanced meals and healthcare referrals. People had meal choices and health referrals were followed up.
“We found that improvements had been made in providing people with a well balanced diet.” from the report
Better management checks
The new manager had introduced audits covering areas such as care files, medicines, equipment and the environment. These checks had helped identify improvements, including reducing falls.
“We found that these were effective in highlighting ways to improve the service.” from the report
Limited staff training
needs fixingMost staff had not received recent training in some important areas. This included safeguarding, moving and handling, infection control, and mental capacity and liberty safeguards.
“With some staff not having any update in their moving and handling, safeguarding or infection control training.” from the report
Medicine guidance and records
needs fixingGuidance for medicines given as needed or in varying doses was not initially in place. Records explaining why medicines were not given were not always completed consistently. The manager later said the guidance had been put in place.
“We noted that protocols were not in place for medicines prescribed as PRN (as and when required) or variable dose.” from the report
Care plan involvement
needs fixingCare plans did not show whether people or relatives had been involved in creating or reviewing them. The manager said they would improve how this was recorded.
“The care plans we looked at did not show whether people or their relatives had been involved in the creation or review of the plan.” from the report
Too few activities
minorSome people said they were bored and wanted more frequent activities, particularly in the evenings. People also said they rarely went out unless a relative took them.
“We really could do with a few more activities, especially in the evening, we all just sit here and it can be a bit boring.” from the report
- 01What training has every member of staff now completed in safeguarding, moving and handling and infection control?
- 02How do you check that staff understand the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 03How are as-needed and variable-dose medicines now explained and recorded?
- 04How will you involve people and relatives in care plan reviews, and where will this be recorded?
- 05What regular evening and community activities are now available for people who were previously bored or unable to go out?
This was an inspection of all five areas and included a review of improvements since the previous inspection; the report gives ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2017 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 Chataway Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 May 2012.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.