Chartwell Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People benefitted from a service which was responsive to their needs and provided person-centred care. People’s communication and other diverse needs were taken into account. Staff worked well with other agencies and supported people to make choices about their care and plan future care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People experienced care and treatment which was person-centred. One relative told us “I do think the service is personalised for him. They are caring for him with him being very much at the centre. The activities staff particularly so.” Other relatives said “It’s not only medical care. His care is tailored to him personally,” and “I am very impressed with all the time they take to care for mum. They look after her and get to know her personally.” A further relative informed us “When we got to the home, they did a detailed analysis on her care needs. It was discussed with us. They were very good.”

Staff and managers were able to describe robust processes for assessing people’s needs, recording and evaluating these and ensuring they received person-centred care.

People’s care was delivered in line with their care plans and their preferences. This included needs related to their physical and mental well-being. We observed care was centred around people’s needs, preferences and wishes. People were able to personalise their rooms.

People benefitted from services which worked well together, met their diverse needs and provided them with continuity of care.

Staff and managers had worked well to integrate the home into the local community and build effective relationships with health and social care professionals.

The GP practice told us the home maintained a collaborative working relationship with them and promoted continuity of care. A healthcare professional told us the home used a multidisciplinary approach to ensure continuity of care, such as admissions or discharges. This involved the views of the person, staff and professionals.

The service worked closely with the GP practice and telemedicine service. Telemedicine services provide instant access for care homes to virtually talk to a specialist team about people’s healthcare concerns, such as a sudden and unexpected decline in their health.

People were provided with information in a way that they could understand and which met their communication needs. A relative told us their family member was “Quite deaf and doesn’t want to wear his hearing aids. Staff know this and make a point of speaking very clearly and carefully with him.” Another relative told us their family member “Can see and hear okay, but her forgetfulness is a problem. Then she gets anxious. The staff talk to her, reassure her, take her hand and gently support her.”

There was information in the Provider Information Return (PIR) to show people’s communication needs were assessed before they went to live at the service and as part of care planning and review processes. The registered manager told us information had been provided to meet the needs of someone with a visual impairment; tools such as picture cards were available to provide visual prompts to people to help them express themselves. The home had other tools such as an interactive touchscreen table, which was particularly aimed at increasing engagement for people living with dementia.

People’s needs regarding communication were recorded in their care plans.

People knew how to provide feedback about the service. Many compliments had been received about standards of care. Few complaints had been received; most people who had made a complaint were satisfied with how it had been handled. One person told us “The manager is easy to contact and listens. She sorts problems out. I’d recommend them (the home) to others.” A relative said they had “No complaints.” They told us they had mentioned something to staff and added “It was sorted.” A further relative told us “We’ve made no recent complaints…our past concerns were listened to by senior staff and dealt with.”

The home held regular meetings with relatives and people who lived at the service, as well as conducting feedback surveys. People were additionally asked for their views when they were ‘resident of the day’, and as part of menu changes. The registered manager told us in their PIR there was a director of feedback and resolution who supported all homes with feedback processes, including duty of candour and whistle blowing.

The complaints procedure was displayed on the wall in the foyer, although it was quite discreetly located. Suggestions and feedback cards were available in the foyer, where people signed in. There was a box in reception to post the cards. People who lived at the service and relatives had been asked for their views through use of surveys. We saw feedback had been listened to and responded to. A number of improvements had been made as a result. These included increasing exercise provision, reviewing the menus and incorporating people’s food suggestions and responding to staffing matters.

People received timely and effective care. Adjustments were made for people with disabilities. People could access services when they needed to, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. The premises and equipment were accessible to people at the service and met their needs.

All staff we spoke with were respectful of people’s rights and promoting care and treatment which followed best practice.

We did not receive any concerns about the home’s approach to ensuring there was equity in access for all people who lived at the home.

The premises were fully accessible to people with disabilities. There was level access throughout and a passenger lift between floors. The gardens provided space, seating and pathways for people to enjoy being outside. There were some areas where improvements could be made to enhance the environment, to meet people’s needs. Some signage around the building did not stand out distinctly, to assist people in orientating themselves around the building, particularly people living with dementia. Some of the dining tables and tables in the bistro were too high for the height of the chairs and could impact on people being able to maintain comfortable posture when eating.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received.

All staff we spoke with were respectful of people’s differences and treated people equally. When asked how people’s care and support reflected their needs and protected characteristics, responses included “It should be person-centred care which builds in the likes, dislikes, beliefs and personal history of a resident.” Another member of staff said “I demonstrate the core values. Individuality, independence, rights…accord due respect, treat with dignity and integrity.” The registered manager told us about a range of ways in which they promoted equality. This included provision of specialist cutlery to support people with disabilities to have dignified mealtimes and celebrating special cultural events. The home hosted a Pride event, celebrating people from LGBTQ+ communities, attended by the mayor and people’s family and friends.

There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion. Assessment and care planning processes took into account a wide range of needs, including those related to disability, age, gender, religion and other protected characteristics.

People, and their relatives where appropriate, were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care.

The registered manager told us in their PIR that end of life care was discussed with people, their family, staff and GP. Personalised plans were then put in place respecting their wishes and support needs. They said they would contact an advocacy service if there were no relatives or friends to support the person.

People’s wishes were documented in their care plans about how they wanted to be supported with end of life care. This included their resuscitation wishes, whether they wanted to be admitted to hospital and people they wanted kept informed of their condition. Management of pain and discomfort was also recorded. Medicines to manage these symptoms were prescribed and were available for when needed. The home also had links with the local hospice service.