CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chilton Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Care and risk plans did not always give staff enough guidance. Food and drink records, fire safety checks, overnight staffing and some medicines also needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not identify or address all the problems found. Oversight of care records, medicines, infection control, training and recruitment was not robust.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Chilton Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but gaps in risk planning, staffing, medicines and management oversight.
Inspectors visited without notice on 22 and 30 November 2023. Four inspectors visited over two days. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was not always safe. Some people did not have clear care and risk plans. Food and drink records had gaps, fire safety checks were incomplete, and some medicines were not given exactly as prescribed. There were also too few staff overnight, although the provider increased staffing during the inspection.
Staff were described and observed as kind and respectful. Safeguarding systems were effective, and the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. However, quality checks had not found or fixed all the problems, so the home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in July 2018. This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safeguarding
People were protected from abuse. Staff knew how to report concerns, and information about raising concerns was available.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had effective safeguarding systems in place.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw staff being attentive and respectful. Relatives also described positive relationships between people and care staff.
“We observed a kind and caring culture at the service. Staff were attentive and were respectful in their interactions.” from the report
Mental capacity
The home was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Legal authorisations were in place when needed.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Daytime support
During the visit, there were enough staff during the day to spend time with people. Staff were available and interacted with people rather than focusing only on tasks.
“Staff were not task orientated and were available and interacting with people.” from the report
Incomplete risk plans
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always explain how staff should support people safely. This included people living with advanced dementia and people at risk of weight loss.
“People's care plans and risk assessments did not always give staff all the information they needed on how to safely care for people.” from the report
Overnight staffing
seriousInspectors were concerned that there were not enough staff overnight to keep people safe and meet their needs promptly. The provider increased overnight staffing during the inspection.
“We were concerned that there were not enough staff to keep people safe and meet their care needs during the nighttime.” from the report
Medicines
needs fixingFor one person, a medicine prescribed to be given when needed was given routinely. Guidance for staff was not always clear.
“for one person, medicines that were prescribed to be administered 'when required' were administered routinely.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits and checks did not identify or resolve all the issues found. Inspectors were also not fully assured that staff recruitment was consistently safe.
“Systems designed to monitor the safety and quality of the service and take action to mitigate risk, were not robust.” from the report
Cleaning details
minorMost areas were visibly clean, but the undersides of some equipment and many light pull cords were heavily soiled.
“the underside of some pieces of equipment was soiled and many light pull cords were heavily soiled.” from the report
- 01What has changed in care plans and risk assessments, especially for people living with advanced dementia or at risk of weight loss?
- 02How many staff are now scheduled overnight and at weekends, and how do you check that people's needs are met promptly?
- 03How do you make sure food and drink records are complete and acted on when someone is losing weight?
- 04How do you check that medicines prescribed to be given when needed are only given when appropriate?
- 05What checks now show that recruitment, medicines, infection control and care records are being properly monitored?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2024 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, July 2018
Chilton Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements sustained since the previous inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive visit on 9 May 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements in medicines, care records, building security, nutrition monitoring and management oversight.
The previous inspection in March 2017 had rated the home Requires Improvement and found two legal breaches. At this inspection, inspectors found that the breaches had been addressed and there were no breaches of regulations.
Previous problems addressed
Inspectors found that the concerns from the previous inspection had been dealt with and sustained. No regulations were breached at this inspection.
“At this inspection on 9 May 2018 we found no breaches in regulations, as the necessary improvements had been made and sustained.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as patient, calm and supportive. Inspectors observed warm interactions and respect for privacy and dignity.
“Staff consistently respected people's privacy and dignity and interacted with them in a kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and support needs. Staff responded to changes in people's wellbeing and supported individual choices.
“People received personalised care that took account of their individual choices and preferences and responded to their changing needs.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could join group or individual activities, go on trips and spend time in the garden. Activities were arranged around people's preferences.
“People participated in activities and hobbies that interested them, both on an individual and group basis.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The management team introduced audits and checks covering areas such as medicines, care plans, complaints and safety. Staff reported improved communication and morale.
“Systems and procedures had been implemented to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Fluid records
needs fixingSome fluid charts did not show the recommended daily target or total. This meant it was not always clear whether a person had drunk enough.
“However not all fluid charts seen showed the recommended daily target or total for each person so it was not always possible to know if a person had met their target fluid intake.” from the report
Food plan needed updating
needs fixingOne person ate better when offered soft food, but the care plan did not yet fully reflect this. Staff said the plan was due for review.
“the person's care plan did not fully reflect this.” from the report
Breakfast tabards
minorSome people remained in tabard aprons after breakfast. Inspectors said removing them after the meal would have better protected dignity.
“It would have been more dignified if the tabards had been removed when the meal had finished.” from the report
- 01How do you record each person's recommended daily fluid target and total intake?
- 02Has the care plan been updated to reflect the person's better response to soft food?
- 03How do staff make sure breakfast tabards are removed promptly after meals?
- 04What further training has been provided on advance care planning, and how is this used in people's care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, the premises and the care provided; the provider could not complete its Provider Information Return because of technical problems. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 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 Chilton Court
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.