This was an unannounced inspection that took place on Friday 28th August 2015.
Chichester Hall is a period property that has been adapted to provide accommodation and care for up to twenty older people. It is set in its own extensive grounds in a residential area of Skinburness.
All accommodation is in single, ensuite rooms and there are suitable shared lounge and dining areas.
The provider owns two other care homes in Cumbria.
The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service had suitable systems in place to protect people from harm and abuse. The staff team understood their responsibilities under safeguarding. The provider responded appropriately to staff concerns and had a ‘whistle blowing’ policy.
There were suitable plans in place to deal with any emergency situation. Risk assessments and management plans were in place to ensure the environment was safe. Accidents and incidents were monitored.
We saw that the home was suitably staffed to meet people’s needs. Recruitment was done correctly and the service had a disciplinary procedure in place.
Medicines were well managed. Staff were trained and competent in dealing with medicines.
The home was clean and tidy and there were good infection control measures in place. Staff had ready access to personal protective equipment.
Staff had been in receipt of training over a two year period that ensured that everyone had the right skills and knowledge to care for vulnerable people. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal. The manager made sure that staff understood what good practice was.
The registered manager and the senior care staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They took appropriate steps when they judged someone might be deprived of their liberty. Restraint was not used in the service.
People told us that the food was “really good” and we saw evidence of people being encouraged to eat well. The food provided was nourishing and varied. People were helped to maintain a healthy weight.
Chichester Hall is an older property but the provider had an ongoing programme of improvement and upgrade to the environment.
We observed staff interacting with people in the home. We saw that they cared for and about people as individuals. We saw sensitive and patient staff who could also use affection and humour appropriately.
People were helped to retain their privacy and dignity. Care planning supported independence and personal preferences.
We had evidence to show that the team worked well with local health care providers to give people good care at the end of their lives.
We saw good assessments of need and detailed and relevant plans for care delivery. We judged the care planning system to be person centred and effective.
People told us they were happy with the activities, outings, parties and entertainments on offer. The home had good links with the local community.
There had been no complaints about the service and there was information available so that people could complain formally. People said they just told the registered manager.
The home had an experienced and suitably trained and qualified registered manager. People who lived in the home and the staff were aware of her vision and values.
The service had a quality assurance system that the registered manager had developed to meet the needs of the home. This was working effectively. Any suggestions for improvement were followed through in a timely manner.