CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Chase
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were kept safe through individual risk assessments, trained staff and safeguarding procedures. Medicines administration records had no unexplained gaps, and two staff checked medicines rounds.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and the home worked with health professionals. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare, communication and legally authorised decisions where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found kind, patient and compassionate care. People's privacy, dignity, equality and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication styles. People enjoyed activities, attended a day centre and were supported to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits and other checks to monitor quality and safety. Inspectors found a positive culture, feedback systems and work with health professionals to improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 April and 11 May 2023. One inspector spoke with the manager, five care staff and two people living at the home. Feedback was also sought from four relatives, and records including care plans, risk assessments, training and recruitment files were checked.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and care that reflected people's choices and communication needs. People were supported by kind staff, encouraged to be independent and offered activities, healthcare support and visits with relatives.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published on 25 March 2020. Safe, effective and well-led improved to Good, while caring and responsive remained Good. The provider had previously breached Regulations 12 and 17, but inspectors found enough improvement and said the home was no longer in breach.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff on duty, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were administered using clear procedures. Records showed no unexplained gaps.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) were completed accurately with no unexplained gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and patient. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and supported to express their views.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and patient with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded individual preferences, communication needs and support during distress. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes.
“Each person living at the home had an individual care plan detailing their preferences and how to clearly support them if in distress.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities they enjoyed, attended a day centre and were supported to spend time with people important to them.
“People were able to take part in a number of activities which were engaging and were supported to spend time with people they cared about.” from the report
Improved management systems
The home had organised quality checks, gathered feedback and worked with health professionals. This supported the improvement from the previous inspection.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's risk assessments updated if their health or behaviour changes?
- 02How would you support my relative to communicate choices, including through objects, pictures or extra time?
- 03Which activities and day-centre opportunities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support them to take part?
- 04How will you involve our family in healthcare decisions and best-interest meetings if my relative cannot make a particular decision?
- 05How do you use medicines audits and other quality checks to identify and prevent problems?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; one inspector reviewed records, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and sought professional feedback. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but concerns about behaviour support, records, oversight and legal notifications.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 and 31 January 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
People and relatives said people felt safe and were well cared for. Staff were described as kind and knew people well. People were supported with choices, independence, activities and contact with relatives.
The inspectors found that staff did not always follow behaviour support plans. Some training was out of date or incomplete. Food past its best-before date was found, daily care records lacked some personal care details, and audits had not identified these issues. The home had also failed to send some required notifications to CQC.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published on 15 August 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives said staff treated people well and knew them. Inspectors also saw mostly good interactions between staff and people.
“Relatives told us they felt staff were caring and kind and treated their relative well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make everyday choices and take part in tasks they could manage. Their care plans included support for developing independence.
“Each person had a separate self-help tasks care plan, this enabled staff to promote people's independence” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to attend a day centre, go swimming, listen to music, visit relatives and join activities at the home.
“People attended a day centre from where they participated in various activities in the community, including swimming, arts and craft and dancing with staff from the home.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff for people's needs and safe recruitment checks had generally been completed. Medicine charts were accurate and up to date.
“Staffing levels were based on people's level of need.” from the report
Behaviour support was not always followed
seriousStaff did not always use the techniques set out in a person's behaviour plan. Inspectors said this may have put people at risk of harm, although they found no evidence that anyone had been harmed.
“We found care was not always delivered in line with people's individual behavioural care plan.” from the report
Training was overdue
seriousEight staff needed training in behaviours that challenged the service. Two staff had training that expired in September 2018, and some staff also lacked refresher training in autism awareness.
“Records showed not all staff completed training in behaviours that challenged the service and some required refresher training which had expired.” from the report
Care records lacked detail
needs fixingDaily records did not always say what personal care had been provided. This meant inspectors could not be sure care was being delivered as planned.
“Daily records documented how people spent their day, however, these did not always provide details of the personal care provided to people.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits did not identify out-of-date food, gaps in care records or failures to follow behaviour plans. Repairs to kitchen cupboards and communal bathroom radiators also needed a clear timetable.
“Although audits of food had been carried they had failed to identify foods that had passed their best before date.” from the report
Required notifications were missed
seriousThe home had not sent CQC notifications about two incidents involving treatment for injuries or about authorised DoLS. The notifications were submitted retrospectively after the inspection.
“The provider is required by law to submit notifications of incidents or events to the Care Quality Commission, however they had failed in their responsibility to submit two incidents resulting in treatment for injuries sustained and DoLS notifications” from the report
Photograph consent was not recorded
minorThe manager said consent had been obtained for photographs, but this was not recorded in the care records reviewed. One relative said they had not been involved in giving consent.
“However, this was not in care records reviewed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every staff member follows each person's behaviour support plan?
- 02Has all overdue training in behaviours that challenge the service and autism awareness now been completed?
- 03How do managers check that daily records include the personal care people received?
- 04Have the kitchen cupboards and communal bathroom radiators been repaired, and what were the completion dates?
- 05How are incidents, authorised DoLS and photograph consent now recorded and reported?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the care provided, the premises, staffing, medicines, records and management systems, with all five CQC questions rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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 The Chase
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Newham
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 £1,190 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.