CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chilmington House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with minor medicines recording issues and some staff vacancies.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection over 7 and 8 June 2017. The inspector spoke with staff and people using the service, observed daily care, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and safety documents.
The home supported up to seven people with learning disabilities and sometimes physical disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by trained staff, treated with respect and involved in decisions. Care was adapted to individual needs, including health, communication, nutrition, mobility and activities.
The home had remained Good since the previous inspection in April 2015. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did find a missed medicines signature and some unclear labels, but no medicines errors or omissions had occurred in the previous 12 months.
Kind and respectful care
Staff involved people in decisions, understood their communication and supported their dignity and privacy.
“We saw warmth and humour in the interactions between people and staff and people were offered prompt reassurance if they were becoming anxious.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and communication methods. Staff adapted food, equipment, routines and activities to individual needs.
“Care plans and associated records were detailed and person-centred.” from the report
Good leadership and monitoring
Managers monitored care, held team meetings and followed up quality issues. Staff were described as positive and motivated.
“The registered manager and other members of the management team monitored care delivery informally on an ongoing basis.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingOne senior staff member had not initialled the medicines record after giving a person's medicines. Some prescribed creams also had labels that could not be read clearly.
“However, we saw that on one occasion within the current month, a senior had not initialled the MAR sheet for one person's medicines, which they had administered.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThe home had two vacant posts and had experienced recent staff turnover. Some agency staff were used at night, although inspectors said staffing levels were sufficient.
“Recruitment was ongoing for the two current vacant posts.” from the report
Training on sensory equipment
minorStaff had not received training on using the sensory equipment. The manager provided guidance based on previous experience.
“Although staff had not attended training on the use of this equipment, the registered manager had previous experience with it and was able to offer guidance on its use.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the missed medicines signature, and how are medicines records checked now?
- 02Have the unclear labels on prescribed creams been replaced, and how do staff check labels before medicines are given?
- 03How many staff posts are currently vacant, and how often are agency staff used at night?
- 04How are staff trained to use the sensory equipment safely and appropriately?
- 05How will my relative's communication needs, food and drink requirements, health needs and preferred activities be recorded and reviewed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the home was rated Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 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 Chilmington House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Reading
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 £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult 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.