Chesterberry

Updated 1 February 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

Inspection team: The inspection team comprised of one inspector, a British Sign Language [BSL] interpreter and a relay interpreter. A relay interpreter was required to communicate with people who are deaf but use communication techniques other than BSL.

Service and service type: Chesterberry is a care home for people with sensory impairment, learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders.

The service had a manager was currently applying to become registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 19 December 2018 and was unannounced.

What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection: When planning our inspection, we looked at the information we held about the service. This included notifications received from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts, which they are required to send us by law. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asked the provider to give some key information about the service, what the services does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted the Local Authority commissioning service for any relevant information they may have to support our inspection. We also contacted the Health Watch Birmingham who provide information on care services.

Inspection site visit activity started on 19 December 2018 and ended on 19 December 2018. It included discussions with people who use the service, their relatives, members of care staff and the manager. We also carried out a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), which is an observational tool used to help us collect evidence about the experience of people who use services, especially where people were not able to tell us verbally. We visited the office location on 19 December 2018 to see the manager and office staff, and to review care records, policies and procedures.

During our visit we looked at the care records of three people and three staff files as well as the medicine management processes and records maintained by the provider about recruitment and staff training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service and a selection of the service’s policies and procedures to check people received a quality service.

Updated 1 February 2019

Care service description

Chesterberry is a care home for people who have sensory impairment, learning disabilities and or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection there were 7 people living at the home.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

What life is like for people using this service:

• People were kept safe and secure from risk of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately by the provider. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that risk of harm was minimised.

• Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs.

• Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. 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 support this practice.

• People were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s rights to privacy were respected by the staff that supported them and their dignity was maintained. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.

• People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs. People received care from staff that knew them well.

• People using the service, their relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. The provider had effective auditing systems in place to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service provision. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service, were gathered and used to support service development.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated as Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.