CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chilwell House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Recruitment, staffing, medicines, risk management, infection control and incident reviews were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust quality and safety monitoring, clear staff responsibilities and a positive person-centred culture. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Chilwell House rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and improved leadership systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 April 2023. Two inspectors reviewed information from the CQC, the local authority and professionals, and spoke with one person, one relative and eight staff members.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe remained Good. Well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough staff, safe medicines systems, regular risk checks and suitable infection control measures.
People were involved in planning their daily lives and care. Inspectors found that the home had improved its quality and safety checks since the previous inspection, and that identified improvements were acted on.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected during this visit. The ratings for the other questions were carried forward from the previous inspection, and the overall rating remained Good.
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home used appropriate recruitment checks and had enough staff to meet people's needs. People and relatives said staff were available when needed.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their individual needs.” from the report
Medicines support
Trained staff administered medicines safely, with regular checks of their practice. Some people were supported to manage their own medicines where appropriate.
“People were empowered and supported to take control of their own medicines in line with their understanding and ability.” from the report
Improved monitoring
Quality and safety checks had improved since the previous inspection. The home identified areas for improvement and acted on them.
“Since our previous inspection, improvements had been made to the quality and safety monitoring systems in place.” from the report
Person-centred care
People were supported to set individual goals, build independence and take part in activities that interested them. Their achievements were recognised.
“There was a positive person-centred approach to the delivery of people's care.” from the report
People involved in daily life
People had regular opportunities to give feedback and were involved in planning their days and in the running of the home.
“People were involved and included in the day to day running of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative to set and review their individual goals?
- 02What level of support would my relative receive with medicines, and could they manage any medicines themselves?
- 03How do you monitor staffing levels for each person's individual needs?
- 04What quality and safety checks are carried out, and how will you tell us when improvements are needed?
- 05How would my relative be involved in planning their daily activities and giving feedback about the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2023 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, August 2019
Chilwell House was rated Good overall, with kind and safe care, but inspectors found the service was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 2 July 2019. Inspectors reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, complaints and incidents. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and observed care.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received suitable care from trained staff, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities and community life.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had been through management changes, and quality checks were inconsistent. Some audits had not been completed, although a full audit and action plan had recently been started.
The overall rating was Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 21 February 2017. The home was not placed in special measures in this report.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and compassionate interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and individuality.
“Staff supported people in a friendly, warm and compassionate way.” from the report
People had choice and independence
People helped plan and review their care. They were supported to make decisions, go out and take part in community activities.
“People were involved in the planning of their individual care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk support
Staff understood people's risks and how to manage them. Medicines were stored and given safely, with clear guidance for medicines taken when needed.
“Medicines were stored securely, and staff were trained and monitored to ensure they followed safe practice.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received mandatory and role-specific training. New staff had induction and shadowing with experienced workers.
“New staff were provided with an induction which included mandatory training and shifts where they shadowed experienced staff.” from the report
Inconsistent quality checks
needs fixingThe home did not have a quality assurance policy or complete set of audits. Inspectors said there had been significant shortfalls in monitoring, although a new audit and action plan had begun.
“There was no quality assurance policy or procedure in place.” from the report
Management instability
needs fixingThe registered manager had left and acting managers were covering while a new manager was due to start. The provider acknowledged that managerial oversight had been lacking for some time.
“There had been an unsettled period of instability within the management team, earlier in the year, and the registered manager no longer worked at the service.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager started, and who is responsible for the home's day-to-day management now?
- 02Which audits were missing at the inspection, and have they all been completed regularly since then?
- 03What progress has been made on the action plan created after the full quality audit?
- 04How does the home check that care plans, health plans, infection control and staff training remain up to date?
- 05How are agency staff chosen and supported to make sure they know each person's routines and needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; end of life care was not assessed because no one was receiving it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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 Chilwell House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
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.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 August 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.