CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chy Keres
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines management and systems for safeguarding and learning from incidents. They identified missed weekly water temperature checks and recommended a review of health and safety audits.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff assessed people's physical, mental, communication and sensory needs. Training was refreshed, people's dietary preferences were supported, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not inspected during this visit. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Responsive was not inspected during this visit. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, positive feedback from relatives and staff, regular opportunities to give feedback, and action plans when audits identified improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2023
HF Trust - Chy Keres is rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led respite care, with some safety checks needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced. Inspectors visited on 6 June 2023 and completed their inspection activity between 6 and 8 June. They spoke with people staying at the home, managers and care staff. They reviewed care records, staff records, medicines and management records, and contacted relatives and an external professional.
The home provides planned and emergency respite care for autistic people and people with a learning disability. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, suitable care records and a clean environment. People were supported to make choices, and staff knew their needs well.
The overall rating is Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so the report used ratings from the previous inspection for the overall rating. Inspectors recommended that health and safety auditing processes should be reviewed.
Staff know people well
Many staff had worked at the home for several years. Inspectors said low staff turnover helped provide consistent support.
“Staff turnover was very low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were brought in their original packaging, given according to prescribers' instructions and checked by a second trained staff member.
“Medicines were managed safely. Families provided information on the medicines their relative was taking and updated this with any changes.” from the report
Choice and communication
Staff supported people to make decisions and used communication methods suited to their needs.
“Staff supported people to make decisions following best practice in decision-making. Staff communicated with people in ways that met their needs.” from the report
Support for families
Relatives were asked for feedback, and inspectors received positive comments about the service and its management.
“Relatives told us their family member was valued and had a good time when staying at the service.” from the report
Missed water safety checks
needs fixingWeekly water temperature checks had not been completed since October 2022. The manager said this would be assigned to a named staff member, and inspectors recommended reviewing the auditing process.
“Water temperature checks, which should have been completed by staff weekly, had not been carried out since October 2022.” from the report
Risk information was not always easy to find
needs fixingAdvice from other agencies was not always transferred to the relevant risk assessment. The manager told inspectors this had been addressed after the inspection.
“It had not always been transferred to the appropriate risk assessment to ensure the detail was easily accessible to staff.” from the report
- 01Have weekly water temperature checks been restarted, and can we see how they are recorded and audited?
- 02How do you make sure advice from health professionals is transferred promptly into the correct risk assessment?
- 03Who will be managing the home during my relative's stay, and how is cover arranged when the registered manager is supporting another service?
- 04How do you quickly assess and support someone arriving for an emergency placement?
- 05What face-to-face supervision and support will staff caring for my relative have?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the report says the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with some gaps in staff supervision and decision-making records.
This was an announced comprehensive inspection on 9 June 2018. The inspector spoke with people using the service, a relative, the manager and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, training records, staffing information and other documents.
The home provides respite care for up to six people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines arrangements, good care planning and a clean, accessible building. People were treated kindly and had choices about meals, activities and where to spend their time.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors made recommendations about keeping records of who can make decisions for people who lack capacity, and about giving staff regular formal supervision. The rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The team was stable and many staff knew people well.
“People were supported by suitable staff who had been recruited safely.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and recorded safely. Medicines were checked when people arrived and left, and errors were investigated.
“All medicines were stored appropriately and records of medicines administered were kept.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly and families were asked to contribute where appropriate.
“The care plans were reviewed every three months or in response to any identified changes.” from the report
Kind relationships
People had positive relationships with staff and other people. Staff checked that people were comfortable and happy.
“Staff were respectful and spoke with people considerately, frequently checking they were comfortable and happy.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People could take part in activities that matched their interests, both in the home and in the community. Facilities were adapted so people could use them equally.
“People had opportunities to take part in activities which were meaningful to them and reflected their individual interests.” from the report
Irregular staff supervision
needs fixingAbout one third of staff had not had a formal supervision meeting for several months. Inspectors recommended that regular formal supervision should be provided.
“Approximately one third of the staff team had not had a supervision since late January or early February 2018.” from the report
Decision-making records
needs fixingThe home did not have records showing whether families had legal authority to consent to specific decisions for people who lacked capacity. Inspectors recommended seeking advice and recording these arrangements clearly.
“There were no records to show whether families had the legal authority to consent on behalf of people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions.” from the report
Gathering people's views
minorThere was no formal system for gathering the views of people using the service. The manager said this had been identified as an area for improvement.
“There were no formal systems in place to gather the views of people using the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now record who has legal authority to make specific decisions for a person who lacks capacity?
- 02How often does each staff member receive formal supervision, and how do you check that meetings are not missed?
- 03How do people using the service give their views about their respite stays if they do not communicate verbally?
- 04How are care plans and medicine records checked when a person arrives for a respite stay?
- 05How do you make sure activities and room arrangements match each person's preferences and communication needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and the Good ratings remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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 Chy Keres
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
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.