What the CQC found at Chilton Meadows Care Home

Staff understood safeguarding, different types of abuse and their responsibility to protect people. Action had also been taken in response to one person's sexual safety concerns.

“Staff had an understanding of safeguarding, the different types of abuse and their responsibility for protecting people.” from the report

The number of falls and serious incidents had improved. Work on falls care planning had led to a reduction in falls.

“This had led to an improvement in falls care planning and there had been a reduction in falls since they began this work.” from the report

Inspectors were assured about visitor controls, testing, safe admissions, social distancing and the home's ability to manage infection outbreaks.

“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report

Relatives said they felt involved in their family member's care and were kept informed about concerns.

“Relatives told us they felt involved in the care of their family member and that the service was responsive in letting them know of concerns.” from the report

Care plans did not always explain how staff should reduce risks such as choking, pressure ulcers or malnutrition. This left people at risk of avoidable harm.

“Where risks to people had been identified, such as the risk of choking or acquiring pressure ulcers, there were not always care plans in place to guide staff on how to reduce these risks.” from the report

People at risk of malnutrition did not always have suitable care plans. Staff were not recording one person's food intake, and inspectors were not assured they were getting enough food and drink.

“Observations of staff practice at meal times meant we were not assured this person was being supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.” from the report

Medicine records did not always show whether medicines had been given or why they had not been given. Creams were also not dated when opened.

“Where medicines were not administered for any reason, staff did not always record on the reverse of the MAR chart why it was not administered.” from the report

There were not always enough staff to support people safely, at mealtimes or when people needed emotional support. Some people were left in communal areas without staff present.

“The deployment of staff meant that people did not always have support when they required it.” from the report

Inspectors found exposed hot radiator pipes, scalding hot water and areas or equipment that were difficult to clean. Staff were not always changing aprons or wearing gloves as required.

“People were placed at the potential risk of harm because the service had not identified environmental risks and taken action to mitigate these.” from the report

Audits had identified some problems, but managers did not act quickly or widely enough. Inspectors said earlier improvements had not been sustained and similar problems had appeared at previous inspections.

“Despite this, significant shortfalls had not been identified and robustly acted upon by this management structure.” from the report