CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Chase Rest Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks were not always assessed or managed safely. Infection control, medicines, emergency evacuation arrangements and recruitment checks also needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care documentation had improved, but did not always give staff personalised information about health needs. Staff had training, but inspectors saw that training was not always put into practice.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in choices and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were generally met, with support for communication, relationships, activities and end of life care. Documentation did not always show people's daily choices and care clearly.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager had made considerable improvements, but provider oversight was not reliable enough. Maintenance, cleaning, care plan reviews and records were not consistently monitored or updated.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but safety, infection control, recruitment and management systems still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 May and 1 June 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff, a visitor, relatives and a health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff files and other records.
The home had made improvements since the previous inspection. People and relatives gave positive feedback. Staff were kind, people were involved in choices, activities were available, and health and nutritional needs were generally supported.
However, important problems remained. Risks and care plans were not always complete or up to date. Infection control practices were not consistently followed, cleaning was not reliable, medicines systems needed more safeguards, and recruitment checks were not robust. Some maintenance and fire safety work was also unfinished.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home remained in breach of Regulations 12, 17 and 19.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, personal choices and independence.
“People were supported to express their views, their independence and dignity was respected by staff.” from the report
Safeguarding systems
Inspectors found improvements in safeguarding. Staff knew how to report concerns, and accidents and incidents were recorded and followed up.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to choose how they spent their time, maintain relationships and take part in activities. An activities worker had been employed.
“People told us they really enjoyed the activities provided.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
The home worked with health professionals and made referrals when needed. People's nutritional needs were assessed, including specialist advice about eating and drinking.
“The home worked with other agencies and health professionals to ensure consistent care.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousCare plans did not always explain how conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, dementia or risk of pressure damage affected each person. Staff did not always have clear guidance for responding to distress.
“Risks were not always assessed and managed safely.” from the report
Infection control and cleaning
seriousCleaning schedules were not completed consistently, some areas needed deeper cleaning, and staff were seen moving between areas without changing PPE or washing their hands.
“The provider did not have effective Infection prevention control (IPC) measures in place.” from the report
Medicines safeguards
seriousSome PRN medicines lacked clear guidance. Self-administration checks and care plans were incomplete, medicines storage temperatures were not consistently recorded, and advice was needed about crushing medicines together.
“The provider had not ensured appropriate medicines systems and processes were in place.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousReferences and employment dates were not always clear or checked. Information about work restrictions and overseas criminal record checks was missing.
“Appropriate checks had not been made to ensure staff employed were suitable to work at the home.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify several maintenance, cleaning and care record problems. Care plans and risk assessments were not being reviewed monthly, and some repairs remained outstanding.
“The provider had not ensured good governance.” from the report
Emergency arrangements
seriousSome emergency lighting work was outstanding, and staff had not been trained to use evacuation equipment. A legionella certificate was out of date at the inspection.
“Staff had completed e-learning fire safety training but had yet been trained how to evacuate people using the evacuation equipment in the home.” from the report
- 01What has been done to complete personalised risk assessments and care plans for diabetes, epilepsy, dementia and pressure damage?
- 02What changes have been made to cleaning, handwashing and PPE practices, particularly when staff move between the kitchen, laundry and people's rooms?
- 03How are PRN medicines, self-administered medicines and covert medicines now checked and documented?
- 04Which maintenance, window safety, emergency lighting and fire evacuation actions from the inspection have been completed?
- 05How are monthly care plan reviews, cleaning checks and other governance audits now monitored by the provider?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including a follow-up to the previous Regulation 17 Warning Notice and infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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 2022
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found serious safety and management failures, with the well-led question rated Inadequate.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 and 28 September 2022. Two inspectors spoke with 11 people and 11 staff and checked care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, training records and management documents.
Inspectors found unclear and out-of-date care plans, unsafe medicines processes, gaps in safeguarding, weak recruitment and training, and problems with fire safety, maintenance and infection control. The home was not well-led because there was no effective system to check quality, safety and legal requirements.
People said they liked the staff and felt safe, and inspectors saw polite interactions. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in July 2018, to Requires Improvement. The home must send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Kind interactions
People said they liked the staff, and inspectors saw staff speaking with people politely.
“People told us they liked staff; we saw staff engaging with people in a polite manner.” from the report
People felt safe
The people inspectors spoke with said they felt safe living at the home.
“People we spoke to told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Links with health services
The home worked with mental health teams, community nurses, GPs and other professionals. Referrals had also been made to relevant healthcare services.
“Staff worked with other outside agencies to support people including mental health teams, community nurses and GPs.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThere was no effective system for checking quality, safety or whether improvements were being made. Important safety documents and checks could not be found.
“There was no effective quality assurance system in place to monitor and review the service.” from the report
Unsafe care records
seriousCare plans and risk assessments were out of date, contradictory and difficult to follow. This meant staff, particularly new staff, might not know people's current needs.
“Care plans and risk assessments were confusing and contradictory.” from the report
Medicines problems
seriousInspectors found an out-of-date controlled medicine, creams and eye drops without opening dates, and gaps in medicines records. It was unclear whether some medicines had been given as prescribed.
“It was unclear if people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousStaff did not have suitable up-to-date safeguarding policies or training. An allegation of abuse had not been referred to the local authority or CQC at the time of the inspection.
“An allegation of abuse had occurred. This had not been referred to the local authority or CQC.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
seriousSome new staff worked alone before completing an appropriate induction or mandatory training. Recruitment records were incomplete.
“New staff were working unsupervised without having completed mandatory training or an induction.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousSome areas needed cleaning, and the laundry room lacked handwashing facilities and a clear separation between clean and dirty laundry. Kitchen procedures also risked cross-contamination.
“There were no handwashing facilities or means for staff to clean and disinfect their hands after handling soiled laundry.” from the report
- 01What actions have you completed to make medicines records accurate and to check that medicines are in date?
- 02How do you now ensure staff complete induction, mandatory training and competency checks before working unsupervised?
- 03What is the current position of the registered manager, and who has oversight of the home when the manager is absent?
- 04How have you updated care plans, risk assessments, mental capacity records and DoLS information?
- 05What changes have been made to cleaning, laundry, kitchen procedures, fire safety and maintenance checks?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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 The Chase Rest Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.