CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chypons Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but medicines, records, recruitment and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 April 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led because concerns had been raised about staffing, records, nutrition and medicines. They reviewed three care plans and risk assessments, staff records and other management records, and spoke with people, staff and relatives.
People received their medicines as prescribed and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were kind, sought consent and knew people well. The home was clean and comfortable, and people were supported with food, drink and access to health professionals.
However, medicines requiring stricter controls were not accurately recorded or regularly audited. Care plans and risk assessments were out of date, some recruitment checks were incomplete, and checks on accidents, people's money and legal restrictions were not effective. The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement, and CQC requested an action plan.
Kind and respectful care
Staff sought people's consent before care and were described as kind and caring. Staff also understood people's individual care and communication needs.
“Staff were kind and caring and sought people's consent before care and support was provided.” from the report
Enough staff on duty
Inspectors saw staff responding to requests and supporting people safely. Recent recruitment had reduced pressure on the staff team, although staff said there had been occasional shortages.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff employed and on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Food and nutrition support
People were supported with meals and drinks when needed. Experienced kitchen staff understood dietary needs, and people said they enjoyed the food.
“Food looked appetising and people told us they enjoyed it.” from the report
Clean and comfortable surroundings
Inspectors found the premises in good condition and free from bad smells. Rooms were comfortable and contained personal belongings.
“We toured the premises and found them to be in good condition and free from malodours.” from the report
Links with health professionals
Staff referred people to health and social care professionals when needs changed. Care records included details of professional visits.
“Staff promptly referred people to other professionals when their needs changed.” from the report
Out-of-date care plans
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always reflect people's current needs. Staff often relied on verbal information, leaving a risk that new or agency staff would not have the right guidance.
“This meant that any new or agency staff would not have the information needed to guide and direct them to meet the person's needs.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome new staff files did not show complete employment histories, verified references or a recorded induction. This meant safe recruitment processes were not consistently followed.
“The registered manager did not always follow safe processes to make sure that new staff recruited were appropriate to work alone with vulnerable people.” from the report
Weak management audits
needs fixingManagement had not regularly audited accidents, incidents, medicines or people's money. Records for money held for people did not match the cash held.
“The registered manager had not audited these events since June 2022.” from the report
Legal restrictions records
seriousThere was no reliable overview of applications and authorisations for restrictions under the Mental Capacity Act. Information given to inspectors did not match local authority records, so some people may have been restricted without authorisation.
“This meant some people could have been restricted without authorisation.” from the report
- 01What has been done to check and reconcile all medicines requiring stricter controls, and how often are these checks now audited?
- 02Have every person's care plan and risk assessment been reviewed to reflect current needs, including guidance for new or agency staff?
- 03How are recruitment files checked now to confirm employment history, references, DBS checks and induction records are complete?
- 04How are accidents, incidents and people's money audited, and when was the last completed audit?
- 05How do you now track Mental Capacity Act and DoLS applications and authorisations to make sure restrictions are lawful?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and previous ratings for questions not inspected were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements after concerns about PPE.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 November 2020. It was carried out because concerns had been raised about infection prevention and whether staff were wearing full personal protective equipment.
Inspectors found staff wearing the correct PPE and understood when to use it. They also found suitable testing, safe admission and isolation procedures, visiting controls, cleaning routines and social distancing arrangements. No evidence was found that people were at risk of harm from the concern.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 7 March 2018.
PPE use
Staff were wearing the correct PPE and knew when it was needed. The home also had reminders and discussed PPE in staff meetings.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, with cleaning routines intended to reduce infection risks and maintain hygiene.
“The service was clean. Effective cleaning routines were implemented to ensure infection control risks were minimised and people were kept safe.” from the report
Contact with families
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives through telephone and video calls. It also used personalised photograph postcards.
“Contact with peoples loved ones were actively encouraged.” from the report
Staffing
Suitable staffing levels were maintained, with staff absence covered by the permanent team rather than agency workers.
“Suitable staffing levels were maintained at the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff currently trained and checked on using the correct PPE?
- 02How do you currently manage visits, including visits for people receiving end of life care?
- 03What testing and isolation arrangements are used when someone moves into the home or may have an infection?
- 04How do people who cannot have visitors keep in touch with their families?
- 05How do you cover staff absence, and are agency staff now being used?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not provide new ratings for the overall service or the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 2020 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 Chypons Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 May 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £980 to £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.