We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Chantry on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Chantry, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• The service was committed to a programme of regular testing of staff and people using the service, and began to do this as soon as it was available. This identified two asymptomatic cases of Covid 19 and prompt action was taken which contained the virus and prevented spread to others.
• The service sought advice regularly directly from Public Health England when a positive case of Covid was confirmed. They found the advice useful and this also provided reassurance to the staff team. For example, following their advice the service made changes to cleaning products which helped reduce the spread of the virus at an early stage.
• All staff attended training online in infection control. They could interact with a live trainer and actively participate in the session. Staff found this more engaging and effective than usual online training sessions.
• A wooden cabin in the garden was used effectively for facilitating visits as it was close to the external gate. This meant visitors did not need to enter the premises to access it. The cabin was cleaned before and after visits to reduce the risk of cross infection.
• Each person using the service had a one to one worker on each shift, and this worker was given responsibility for weekly deep cleans of their room and cleaning the cabin before and after any visits. When one person was Covid positive and found it difficult to self-isolate, their support worker ensured continuous cleaning took place of areas they spent time to reduce the risk of spreading to others.
• The risk of cross infection was reduced due to people having their own en suite facilities and many people having kitchenettes and washing machines.
• Effective use of return to work interviews when any staff member had been away from work for any reason meant they were supported to return safely and could be given important updates in a timely way.
• The service had an up to date and carefully considered business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed. This ensured they were well prepared to deal with arising issues related to Covid 19.
The accommodation was over two floors. The service is a detached property located on a private road. All the bedrooms are single occupancy with an en-suite facility. Kitchens are included in some of the bedrooms other people have access to small kitchenette areas. There are communal rooms including an activities room, snoozelyn room and fully enclosed garden. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people in residence.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the 'Registering the Right Support' and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion and promote people with learning disabilities and autism using the service to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
People's experience of using this service:
• People received exceptional person-centred, responsive care from staff who had a clear understanding of their support needs. Support plans were in place, which provided detailed and refined information about the care people required.
• People felt safe and staff ensured that risks to their health and safety were reduced. We found that sufficient staff were deployed to safely meet people’s needs and that staff had received detailed training to ensure they had the knowledge to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm or abuse, whilst providing care.
• People were protected from the risk of infection. The service ensured staff were trained to keep the environment clean and staff followed policies and procedures to monitor and reduce the risk.
• Systems were in place to support people to take their medicines safely. Staff received relevant training and felt well supported. People were asked for their consent to their care and appropriate steps were taken to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions.
• People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain good health.
• We saw there were positive and caring relationships between people using the service and the staff who cared for them. Staff promoted people's rights and to make their own decisions about their care wherever possible.
• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
• People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood the importance of this.
• People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint and there was a clear complaints procedure in place.
• The service had effective measures in place to support people when they reached the end of their life and ensure their wishes and needs were planned for.
• An open and transparent culture enabled people and staff to speak up if they wished to. The management team provided strong leadership and a clear direction to staff.
• There were robust quality monitoring procedures in place. The management structure of the service was clear.
• People's safety had been considered and risks had been reduced by the introduction of equipment or guidance. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and knew how to protect people from harm.
• Information was provided in a range of formats to support people’s understanding.
• People’s cultural needs were recognised and supported.
• There was a registered manager at the home and the rating was displayed at the home and on their website. When required notifications had been completed to inform us of events and incidents, this helped us the monitor the action the provider had taken.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Published June 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection we found the service had retained a Good, and in one area improved to Outstanding.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
The Chantry is a care home that provides residential care for up to 13 adults with a learning disability and those with complex needs including autism, behaviours that challenge services and personality disorder. The service is a detached property located accessible using a private road. All the bedrooms are single occupancy with an en-suite facility and kitchen in some of the rooms and, which people can use with the support of staff. There are communal rooms including an activities room and the garden. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people in residence.
A registered manager was in post. 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.
People told us they felt safe at the service and that staff had a good understanding of their needs and health conditions. People had dedicated staff who understood their role in supporting them at home and when accessing the wider community.
Staff received ongoing support and training to provide person centred care to keep people safe and provide support if their behaviours became challenging. People were supported by staff to take positive risks to promote their independence, rights and choice of lifestyle. Staff helped people to develop daily living skills to promote their wellbeing and independence.
People’s care plans took account of potential risks to people and recorded how risks could be minimised whilst recognising people’s rights and choices in how they lived their lives. Information was available in an easy format, which helped people to understand their rights and make decisions about their care. People’s relatives were involved in their family member’s care to ensure the care and support provided was reflective of their interests and hobbies. Staff were trained and understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm and to support maintain their safety.
Staff were recruited in accordance with the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider took account of the needs of people they supported to ensure there were sufficient numbers of staff to promote their safety and wellbeing
People lived in an environment that was safe and comfortable and had access to a secure garden, which people could use safely. The premises and equipment were routinely serviced and maintained.
People received their medicines at the right time and medicines were stored safely. People had access to health support and referrals were made to relevant health care professionals where there were concerns about people’s health. People were provided with a choice of meals that met their health and dietary needs.
Staff were further supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people. Staff group supervisions were used to share information as to good practice and used as a learning opportunity to develop staff.
People’s consent had been appropriately obtained and recorded. The registered manager and staff team understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and how they might apply to the people who used the service. When staff had concerns about people’s capacity then they sought advice and made appropriate referrals to the local authority when people had been assessed as being deprived of their liberty.
People were involved and made decisions about their care and support needs. Information was provided in a form that the person could understand and enabled them to make choices about how they wish to spend their day. People had opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests and their lifestyle choices were respected by staff.
We saw staff showed care and kindness towards people using the service. People using the service and relatives told us staff were caring that they had confidence in them to provide the support they needed. There was a warm and relaxed atmosphere where people were comfortable. We saw staff interact with people positively; and treated them with dignity and respect.
The registered manager and the team leaders collectively provided effective leadership and management of the service. Staff spoke positively about them in relation to the support and training provided. Staff were confident that any issues raised would be addressed.
People who used the service and relatives told us if they had any concerns or complaints they would tell the registered manager or the staff. Relatives told us that they were confident that any concerns raised would be addressed by the registered manager.
The provider had an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The views and opinions of people who used the service and staff were sought, which included meetings, completion of a range of surveys and internal audits.