Chamberlaine Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Improvement had been made in the governance and management of the home since our last inspection. However, some audits needed to be more robust when checking the effectiveness of policies and procedures. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and felt well supported in their role. Staff spoke positively about the management team and recognised the contribution of the registered manager in providing direction and driving improvement in the service. There were procedures in place to support staff to speak up and promote equality and diversity.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff spoke positively about improvements in the direction and culture of the home. Comments included: “I think we are doing great. I have seen a big turnaround with the paperwork and how everyone is trained to do the paperwork. I think we have really improved in a lot of ways" and "I think we have upped the game quite a lot. There are still some areas to tweak but I think we are making progress.” Staff described good communication and teamwork which supported their work practice. One member of staff told us, “I can’t stop talking about the teamwork here, it is really inspiring. Nobody is allowed to be a weak link because we work as a team. The seniors get our hand and work along with us." The registered manager told us following our last inspection they had worked on rebuilding and developing the confidence and skills within the staff team and now wanted to focus on improving people’s outcomes. They told us, “I want to focus more on the resident's goals and what achievements they want. To be able to deliver the care but also help the residents achieve the goals they want. It is not just about giving care and making sure they are safe; it is all about that, but I want to do more and enrich their lives more."

The registered manager and senior staff carried out daily walkarounds to check on the safety of the service and ensure people’s needs were met. The views of people, relatives and staff were gathered through surveys and meetings. Staff had regular supervision to review their practice and discuss their personal development. The provider had recently implemented an observation tool to monitor people’s experiences of the care they received. The tool captured staff interactions and recorded those that had the greatest impact on people to model good staff practice.

Staff recognised the contribution of the registered manager in providing direction and driving improvement in the service. One member of staff commented, “She is just on her game, consistent and very approachable. On the work side of things, making sure things are done right and you can always go to her if you have any concerns. I think that is why she gets a lot done, because of the way she is towards staff." Another staff member told us, “If my direct supervisor is not around, I reach out to the manager, she is quite available." The registered manager described good support from the provider. They told us they regularly met with their line manager to discuss their role and responsibilities and their management of the home.

Processes were in place to ensure managerial cover when the registered manager was absent from the home. The provider offered an employee support programme, but some staff were not aware of what it could offer. The regional manager told us the programme had recently been updated and planned to share it with staff at the next team meeting.

Staff felt able to share their feedback, but did not always feel they received an outcome to concerns raised. For example, some staff told us they had shared concerns about staffing challenges on the first floor of the home, but did not feel they had received substantive feedback. In other areas staff felt actions had been taken. The registered manager told us they wanted to establish a culture of staff being confident to share their concerns and recognised feedback was integral to that process. They explained, “If staff feel they are not listened to, if they are not happy, they won’t strive to do a good job."

Staff had received training in safeguarding, so understood their responsibility to speak up on behalf of people. Staff were given opportunities through handover, team meetings and individual supervision to raise any concerns, issues or suggestions. The provider had recently carried out a compliance visit which had included feedback from staff about their experiences of working in the home.

Staff told us they were supported personally and professionally and raised no concerns about equality and diversity being supported. They told us they had not witnessed discrimination or unfairness in the home and had been offered support on returning to work after periods of absence.

The provider had processes to support equality and diversity and promote inclusion. Staff received training in equality, diversity and human rights and dignity and respect. New staff completed a health questionnaire so any reasonable adjustments to support their wellbeing at work could be explored.

Senior staff described the regular checks they carried out to ensure staff were following people’s care plans and risks were being managed. The registered manager was aware of their managerial responsibilities and when they needed to submit notifications to CQC. They were able to explain how they retained risk oversight of the service but acknowledged some newly implemented audits needed to be more detailed and specific to service provision at Chamberlaine Court. This was supported by the regional manager who told us, “We know there are errors in the audits. We are looking at changing and improving those audits to be more specific.” They told us this was currently being addressed by the provider’s quality team.

The provider had quality assurance systems to oversee and manage the quality and safety of all aspects of the service. However, we found some recently implemented audits were generic and whilst identifying processes were in place, they were not consistently assessing the effectiveness of those processes. For example, the medication audit had not identified stock discrepancies in people’s medicines and the DoLS audit had not identified the DoLS tracker was not up to date. In response to our feedback, extra monitoring and checks were introduced until these audits had been reviewed and improved upon.

People and relatives were positive about the service and described good relationships with staff and the registered manager. Relatives particularly said they felt able to speak to the registered manager knowing they would be listened to. Comments included: “The manager is very welcoming; I can always go to her with problems”, “I liaise with [registered manager] quite a lot, she is in the know about everyone in the building and her door is always open for us”, “[Registered manager] is great, I’ll pop in and see her and she’ll give me an update, I’m given information if I ask questions, I can get in contact with her if I have any problems. As far as I’m concerned, the place is great, brilliant, I can’t fault them at all” and “When there are minor things I can talk to them, and we sort it together. The management are approachable.”

The registered manager told us they had worked to develop good relationships with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals. They recognised the value of feedback and collaborative working to ensure people’s needs and preferences were met. The registered manager explained, “My residents are happy and even if something isn't quite right, it is about making sure they feel like they are listened to, that we do care and we try and make it better for them. The communication and relationships I have with their family has massively improved." Feedback from other partners reflected the effectiveness of this approach.

Other healthcare professionals described good working relationships and shared no concerns. One healthcare professional told us, “The manager always keeps me updated about person/people, that is allocated to me and works with me to support with the progress of the person.”

There were processes to support collaborative working with others. For example, there was a system to share information with the GP prior to their weekly visit to ensure the effective use of time and resources during their ‘ward round’.

Staff told us their practice was supported because they felt able to ask for support or report any mistakes. One staff member told us, “If I do make a mistake [registered manager] will pull me up on it quickly, check I am okay and see if I need any help." A senior member of staff reiterated the open approach to learning saying, "Staff are not afraid to come and approach any of us if there is an issue. Even if they feel it is a silly question, they will come and ask." The registered manager explained how they wanted to share their experience of career progression to support staff in developing their skills and gaining further qualifications in care.

The registered manager had taken action to learn and address shortfalls in the quality-of-service provision identified at previous inspections. The provider had processes in place to support managers within the provider group to meet, discuss issues and share learning. However, some processes to support the learning and induction of new staff required improvement. For example, where new staff were shadowing more experienced staff, there was a lack of clarity as to the level of supervision the new staff member required. New staff were not always assigned a named mentor as stipulated in their contract of employment. The registered manager assured us improvements in this areas would be incorporated into their improvement plan.