Chandlers Ford Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We assessed 2 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question has remained the same. People received support from staff who were kind and caring and knew there needs well. We received positive feedback from a professional that staff supported people in a caring manner. Overall people spoke highly of staffs conduct, however some people felt they would like more opportunities to be independent in their routines and have opportunities for social engagement with staff outside of their care needs being met. We shared people’s feedback with the provider who told us they would review this.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people felt that staff were kind and caring. Comments included, "[Staff are] very kind. Yes, I get on well with them”, and "The staff are kind to [people], I do get on well with them." People had no concerns regarding their privacy and dignity being maintained. People told us how staff supported them to maintain their privacy which included, "Yes, they always knock on the door and pull the curtains." A relative commented, "When I have been in the door is always closed when [staff] are doing personal care and they have signs which they put on the door indicating that personal care is happening inside.” Relatives we spoke with told us most staff were kind and caring towards their loved one, however some relatives commented that communication with staff could make building a rapport difficult when English was not their first language. For example, one relative said, “The carers are nice but for many of them English is not their first language and for [loved one] that is extremely difficult because she is very deaf, and lip reads and so it’s not possible to do that often because their language skills are poor.”

Staff told us they believed the service provided kind, compassionate care. Comments included, "Good care here? Yes, Chandlers Ford is really good. The residents are happy. Genuinely it is a good home. I would refer my family here." Another staff member said, "The care is good here. Staff talk to the residents, they entertain them, they know them really well, they read the plans."

We received positive feedback from a health care professional who has regular contact with the service that they observed staff treat people with kindness, compassion and dignity.

We observed staff interactions with people were positive and staff gave people time to express themselves and offered choices. We observed staff interacting with people with kindness. During breakfast we saw a staff member supporting someone with their meal. They asked the person, “Would you like some more?" and "Would you like a bit more tea?" The conversation continued with questions about family members and favorite places to visit.

Some people we spoke with told us they wanted more individualised care to build on their strengths and aspirations. For example, one person said, "I’d like to be more independent by being able to walk a little bit more. I do have a four-wheeled walker; it would be ideal to start with, but no one has offered to take me on a walk with it yet." Another person said, "Why is it every time I go to do something they say no. I can’t even make my own cup of tea. It’s always no don’t do that. I went to get a cup of water and they said no they’ll do that for me." Some people didn’t feel that they were always listened to, or they had the opportunity to discuss with staff what is important to them. Comments included, "We had a meeting a week ago, but you have to get them to listen to you, you’ve raised things, but it doesn’t go anywhere." Other people commented they felt there wasn't enough staff around to have the opportunity to speak about things that were important to them. One person said, “I don’t see many staff around to be able to do that. There doesn’t seem to be any excess staff.” Another person commented, “I don’t get to see staff a massive amount. It’s more routine stuff when they come in to help with things or bring drinks rounds. I don’t really get to chat with them much." People had no concerns about their family and friends being able to visit when they wanted and felt loved ones were always welcome in their room. One person said, "Yes, my [loved one] turns up but she’ll phone up and let the home know when she is coming, we’re not restricted." We received positive feedback from people and relatives about the activities staff. One relative told us, "The activity coordinator is very good and [relative] loves to go into the lounge in the mornings and take part in anything going on. The activity co-ordinator plays scrabble in a small group which [relative] loves."

Staff understood the importance of treating people as individuals. For example, one staff said, “Caring is about showing empathy and kindness. It’s making the resident feel important and comfortable. Always make them feel accepted by showing that they have a choice and their decisions matter. They have a say over how their care is to be carried out." Another staff member explained how they supported people to receive personalized care and said they achieved this, "By delivering person-centred care and allowing them to do things their way as long as it’s not causing any harm." They also told us, "There is a resident here from [another county], so we talk about things to do with the country and culture whilst supporting her with personal care."

Staff recognised people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, we observed during lunch a staff member went up to a person and asked whether they would like something else to eat as they could see the person wasn’t eating and gave different options.

Some aspects of documentation were not as person centered as others. Some of the language used in daily records was not as respectful as it could be. For example, in one person’s records, a staff member had documented the person had to “comply” with their care plan. We showed and discussed this with the manager who told us that documentation was a priority on her planned actions for improvement. Communication plans were in place. When people used communication aids, these were documented. For example, glasses, hearing aids and word boards. If people expressed a preference for male or female staff, this was documented. Some people were able to manage some aspects of their personal care, and this was documented. We saw in one person’s care plan it was documented, “Prefers to have a bath.” When we spoke with this person, they confirmed they did have baths and had one the day before. We saw one person preferred to have a wash in the afternoon. Staff had documented that they had offered the person support, and when they refused and said they would like help later, this was provided.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.