Archived: Chalk Hill

Updated 10 April 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on the 14 October 2014.

Due to the size of this service the inspection was carried out by one inspector, who had a background in learning disability care homes.

We spoke with two people who used the service and a relative. We also observed the care and support being provided to the two people that lived there. We spoke with three staff which included the manager. We also looked at a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. For example we looked at two care plans, medication administration records, risk assessments, accident and incident records, complaints records and internal and external audits that had been completed. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Prior to this inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also spoke with the local authority and various professionals to gain their feedback as to the care that people received.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We received the completed document prior to our visit and reviewed the content to help focus our planning and determine what areas we needed to look at during our inspection.

At our last inspection in October 2013 we found the service had met the requirements of the regulations.

Updated 10 April 2015

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on the 14 October 2014. At our last inspection in October 2013 we found the service had met the requirements of the regulations.

Chalk Hill is a detached property located in Kingswood, Surrey. The home is registered to accommodate up to three people and supports those with learning disabilities and autism spectrum conditions, such as Asperger’s Syndrome. At the time of our visit there were two people living at the home.

There was not a registered manager in post. They had left the service two weeks before our inspection. 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 new manager was in post and had begun the application process to become the registered manager.

The manager had fallen behind on staff one to one meetings and appraisals, but they had a clear plan in place to catch up. Staff felt supported by the manager and the organisation.

People who lived at Chalk Hill had a very positive experience because the staff team was dedicated to supporting them and promoting their independence.

People were kept safe as staff carried out appropriate checks to make sure that any risks of harm in the environment were identified and managed. The risk of harm from activities, medicines and other aspects of people’s lives were also identified and suitable controls were in place. These were done in a way so that the restrictions to people’s lives were kept to a minimum. Where restrictions were in place, the service had followed legal requirements to make sure this was done in the person’s best interests.

There were enough staff at the home, and the numbers of staff varied to meet the needs of the people that lived there. Staff were kept up to date with training to ensure they could meet the needs of the people that lived there.

People were involved in their care and support, and were encouraged by staff to do things for themselves. They had an understanding of what their medicines were for, and why they were taking them. People had the food and drinks that they liked and were involved in selecting and preparing their meals.

People’s care and support needs had been identified with them, and their relatives. These had been reviewed regularly to ensure their needs were still being met. People had access to health services to make sure they kept healthy.

People were supported by caring staff that treated them as individuals. Over the course of our inspection people were spoken to in a kind, caring and encouraging manner. Staff took the time to work at people’s own speed. People were never hurried or rushed, but enabled to do things for themselves to promote their independence.

The staff responded well when people’s needs changed. People were also involved in their care, and targets and goals were set with them.

The manager had a good understanding of the aims and objectives of the home, and ensured that people were supported to be as independent as possible. The provider and manager carried out a number of checks to make sure people received a good quality of care. Everyone we spoke with was very complimentary about the service and the staff.