CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chatterton Hey
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed, including PPE, testing, visiting, admissions, social distancing and vaccination requirements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Chatterton Hey was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and support during COVID-19 restrictions.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. Inspectors gave the home 24 hours' notice.
They looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, arranged testing, managed visiting and admissions safely, and kept its infection control policy up to date. Staff also supported men who had to isolate with activities, tablets and access to snacks and drinks.
Support during isolation
Men isolating because of COVID-19 restrictions were offered activities and communication tools suited to their needs. They were also given mini fridges for drinks and snacks.
“Staff gave men who had to isolate due to COVID-19 restrictions, distraction packs as well as offering computer tablets to maintain communication.” from the report
Supported visits
Visits outside the home were arranged where possible. Each visit was risk assessed and could be supported by staff and transport.
“The service faciltated visits outside the home wherever possible.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene, outbreaks and its infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff safety measures
Staff completed COVID-19 risk assessments. New staff completed them when they started, and staff received money to buy separate work clothes.
“All staff had completed COVID-19 risk assessments to understand the impact being in the workplace might have on them” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and how are visitors protected from infection?
- 02What support would my relative receive if they had to isolate?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 05How are visits outside the home risk assessed and supported?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2022 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, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some recruitment and record-keeping improvements needed.
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection on 03 June 2019. One inspector spoke with all five people living in the home, six staff members and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and spoke very positively about the support, staff and atmosphere.
Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, and people were supported with rehabilitation goals, activities, health and independence. Complaints were investigated and the home used feedback and incidents to make improvements.
The inspection found some gaps in staff recruitment records. Inspectors also found conflicting information about one person's capacity and noted that end-of-life wishes were not yet recorded. The provider said it would address these points.
Kind and respectful staff
People gave consistently positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions and found that people were treated as individuals.
“Staff care about us like friends and family would do and not just because it's a job.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped people work towards rehabilitation goals and move on to less supported accommodation. People could have privacy while still receiving support when needed.
“Staff respect the fact that I am living independently here but I can still get support when I need it.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped create their own support plans. Staff supported activities, daily living skills and relationships with family and friends.
“People who used the service were involved in co-producing their support plans with staff.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained and had their medicines skills checked. Inspectors found the medicines administration records they reviewed were complete, and audits were being carried out.
“We looked at the medicine administration records for two people and found these had been fully completed.” from the report
Open management
People and staff could raise suggestions through meetings and other groups. Managers used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve the service.
“The provider and registered manager demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement in the service.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingTwo recruitment files did not contain a full employment history, and it was not clear that gaps had been explored. The provider updated its recruitment policy after the inspection and said it would complete the missing checks.
“We found these did not contain a full employment history and it was not clear that the reasons for any gaps in employment had been explored.” from the report
Conflicting capacity information
needs fixingRecords about one person's capacity to make a particular decision contained conflicting information from external professionals. The manager said a review of the authorisation would be requested.
“We saw conflicting information from external professionals on one person's care records regarding their capacity to make a particular decision.” from the report
Future care wishes not recorded
minorNobody was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The manager said the home's records would be improved to capture people's wishes if their health later deteriorated.
“They told us they would improve their documentation to record any wishes people had about the care and treatment they would wish to receive if their health deteriorated.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every new staff member has a complete employment history and that any gaps are checked?
- 02What was the outcome of the review of the conflicting capacity information and authorisation mentioned in the report?
- 03How do you record each person's wishes about future care if their health deteriorates?
- 04How are people involved in creating and reviewing their support plans and rehabilitation goals?
- 05How do you use feedback, complaints and incidents to make changes to the home?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection of the care, premises and management, and it assessed all five CQC question areas; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 Chatterton Hey
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 July 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.