CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kathleen Chambers House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm and medicines were managed safely. However, protocols were not always in place for known health conditions, including diabetes.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with eating, drinking and healthcare appointments. The manager said the accuracy of one mental capacity assessment record for a DoLS application would be reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found kind, caring and respectful staff. People were involved in their care, and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and interests. End-of-life information was not always recorded consistently, and some staff had not completed end-of-life training.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems for checking quality and safety, regular audits and good communication with families and staff. People, relatives and staff described the home as well managed.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Kathleen Chambers House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, consistent care, but some health and end-of-life records needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home was registered under its current provider. It was unannounced and took place on 23 and 24 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with six people, nine relatives and 11 staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records and management documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they enjoyed living there and felt safe. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, good support with medicines, food and healthcare, and a clean, accessible home.
There were some gaps. Protocols were not always in place for known health conditions, including diabetes. End-of-life information was not always recorded consistently, some staff had not completed end-of-life training, and one mental capacity record needed checking. The manager said these issues would be addressed or reviewed.
Kind and consistent staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors found a consistent staff team and a calm atmosphere.
“People were supported by a consistent staff team. Staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. The home also supported suitable residents to manage some medicines themselves.
“Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Good communication and involvement
People and relatives were asked for their views. Care reviews, meetings, handovers and newsletters helped keep people and families informed.
“There were good systems of communications with staff members and relatives.” from the report
Accessible and pleasant environment
The home was clean and well maintained, with wide corridors, accessible communal spaces and a level garden. People's rooms supported privacy and independence.
“The garden was large and well-kept for people and their visitors to sit and enjoy.” from the report
Health-condition protocols
needs fixingStaff did not always have written protocols to follow for known health conditions, including diabetes. Some information had not transferred correctly to the electronic care-planning system.
“However, there was not always protocols in place for staff to follow around people's health conditions.” from the report
End-of-life information
needs fixingEnd-of-life wishes were recorded inconsistently, which could make it harder for staff to find important information. Some staff had not yet completed end-of-life training.
“However, we found end of life information was not always consistently recorded and meant staff may not be able to locate the relevant details.” from the report
Mental capacity record
minorThe manager gave assurances that the accuracy of one mental capacity assessment record linked to a DoLS application would be checked.
“The registered manager gave assurances that the accuracy of recording a mental capacity assessment for the purpose of making a DoLS application would be reviewed for one person.” from the report
- 01What protocols are now in place for residents with diabetes and other known health conditions?
- 02How do you check that information transfers correctly when care plans are moved to the electronic system?
- 03Have all relevant staff completed end-of-life care training?
- 04How are end-of-life wishes recorded and checked so staff can find them quickly?
- 05What was the outcome of the review of the mental capacity assessment record?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered home covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2022 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 Kathleen Chambers House
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 2020.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.