CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Chestnut Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
OSJCT Chestnut Court was rated Good; inspectors found improved personalised care, strong infection control and better management, but not all areas were inspected.
This was a focused inspection on 18 November 2020, followed by desk-based checks until 4 December. Inspectors looked mainly at whether care was responsive, how the home was led, and infection prevention and control. They spoke with managers and staff, observed care, looked around the building and reviewed records.
The home was clean and inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were safe. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, and the home had arrangements for testing, visiting, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
Inspectors found that care had become more personalised. People had tailored activities, support to keep in touch with relatives, and care plans that reflected their needs and preferences. Management and quality checks had also improved.
The overall rating was Good. Responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was inspected but not rated. Effective and Caring were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating.
Infection control
The home was clean and inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were being followed, including the safe use of PPE.
“The service had clear infection control processes in place and looked clean.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication requirements. Staff were described as knowing people better and providing more personalised support.
“People were receiving care which was personalised to their needs.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
The home used a whole-home approach to activities. People could take part in gardening, crafts, reminiscence, puzzles, walking and other activities suited to them.
“People enjoyed positive and tailored activities from staff.” from the report
Family contact
The home supported video calls and socially distanced visits during lockdown. Relatives were kept informed about people's wellbeing and changes at the home.
“People were supported to maintain their relationships with those who were important to them, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic lock down.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced regular audits and meetings covering care, incidents, medicines and health and safety. Inspectors found that governance systems had improved since the previous inspection.
“The registered manager and provider had comprehensive systems to monitor and improve the quality of care people received” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are care plans kept up to date when a person's needs, abilities or preferences change?
- 02How are PPE, testing, visiting and outbreak arrangements managed now?
- 03What activities are available for a person with my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 04How will you keep our family informed about our relative's wellbeing and any changes at the home?
- 05What quality checks are carried out on care plans, medicines, accidents and health needs, and how are problems followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective and Caring were not inspected and previous comprehensive inspection ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but person-centred support and management oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. Inspectors spoke with eight people, eight relatives and 19 staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was safe, clean and well maintained. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had the training needed to meet people's care needs, and people and relatives described staff as kind and caring.
However, people did not always receive personalised care or enough meaningful activity and social contact. Staff said they often did not have enough time to support people's emotional and wider needs. The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous two inspections, and this was the third consecutive inspection with that overall rating.
Safe care
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found staff knew how to respond to abuse concerns and that accidents and incidents were investigated.
“People and their relatives told us they felt the home was safe.” from the report
Medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and checked as competent to administer them safely.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness and compassion. Inspectors observed staff protecting dignity and respecting personal choices.
“People and their relatives spoke positively about how kind, caring and compassionate the nursing and care staff were.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had the training and support needed to meet people's needs. The provider tracked training and development.
“Staff had the training and support they needed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Handling complaints
Complaints were recorded and answered in line with the provider's policy. The home used complaints to make changes.
“People's complaints were responded to in accordance with the providers policies.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe provider identified problems but did not always put temporary safeguards in place while improvements were being made. Monitoring did not always clearly show what action had been taken or completed.
“The provider had systems in place to identify concerns and drive improvements, however there was not always mitigating actions to ensure that while action was being taken people received an appropriate service.” from the report
- 01How will each resident receive meaningful daily engagement when staff previously said they did not always have time for activities or emotional support?
- 02How will you make sure help with meals, drinks and other requests is provided promptly?
- 03How are you recording and checking support for people who spend time alone or cannot join group activities?
- 04What action was taken to meet the Regulation 9 warning notice by 31 January 2020, and how was this checked?
- 05Who is responsible for the home now that the manager left shortly after the inspection, and how will leadership remain consistent?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted partly by concerns about care, staffing skills and communication, and it covered the home, the care provided and all five CQC key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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 OSJCT Chestnut Court
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 2010.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.