CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chesfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm, risks were assessed and staffing levels were considered sufficient. Medication records were clear, audits were completed and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with healthcare appointments, eating and drinking. The inspectors found that the Mental Capacity Act principles were followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to use their own communication methods and maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were tailored to people's needs and updated when those needs changed. Staff supported personal interests, community activities, complaints and accessible communication.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor and improve care. Staff said they were supported, and the home worked with healthcare professionals and other agencies.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Chesfield House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 04 December 2018. One inspector met all five people living in the home, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and reviewed care, medication, safety and management records.
The inspectors found that people were protected from harm, supported by enough staff and given their medicines safely. Staff understood people's needs, supported healthcare appointments, followed the Mental Capacity Act and helped people make choices about food, activities and daily life.
Care was described as kind and respectful. Staff knew people well, used their preferred communication methods and supported independence and community activities. The home had regular checks, listened to feedback and worked with other agencies.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in March 2016. The inspectors noted that the home had not originally been designed around some best practice guidance about choice, independence and inclusion, although people were being supported in these ways.
Safe staffing and medicines
The inspectors found enough staff on duty and consistent support, including when agency staff were used. Medicines were given safely and records were checked.
“People continued to be supported by enough staff on duty at all times.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received training, supervision and support to develop their knowledge. Training about people's specific needs was given a high priority.
“Staff members told us that they received training that helped maintain their skills and that the provider was supportive of them developing their knowledge further.” from the report
Kind and respectful relationships
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors saw warm relationships between people and staff.
“On arrival in the home and throughout our visit it was clear that relationships between people who lived in the home and those who worked there were warm and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described each person's needs and how staff should support them. People were helped to pursue interests and attend activities and places they enjoyed.
“Each care plan detailed the needs of each person and provided staff with guidance on how to support them in the best way.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home collected feedback and used audits and reviews to identify improvements. Staff, families and visiting professionals could give their views.
“People who lived in the home, their family members and visiting professionals were given the opportunity to have a say about the quality of the service through meetings and surveys.” from the report
Original design did not follow best practice guidance
minorThe home had not originally been designed around guidance that promotes choice, independence and inclusion for people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors said that people were nevertheless being given choices and supported to take part in the local community.
“The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative to take part in activities and community visits that match their interests?
- 02How will you make sure staff understand and use my relative's preferred communication method?
- 03How are risks balanced with my relative's wish to be independent, including using shared areas, the kitchen, laundry or going out?
- 04How will you keep families informed about changes in health or wellbeing and support healthcare appointments?
- 05How are future care needs, including ageing or changes in physical or mental health, planned for?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five Good ratings remained unchanged from March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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.
Every inspection of Chesfield House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.