Charlotte House

Updated 25 November 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was conducted by 2 inspectors, a member of the CQC management board, members of the CQC medicines team and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Charlotte House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Charlotte House is a care home with nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

Both days of the inspection visit were unannounced. The visit on the 25 October 2023 was to check how medicines were being managed at the service. The inspection of the 17 October 2023 looked at all other areas.

What we did before the inspection

We looked at all the information we held about the service, including notifications of significant events and information from members of the public. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection

We spoke with 8 people who used the service, the visiting relatives/friends of 7 people and staff on duty who included care assistants, nurses, the activities coordinators, administrative staff, and the deputy manager. The provider's operations support manager and quality manager also visited the service and met with the inspection team. We met an external healthcare professional who also gave us additional written feedback after the inspection visit. The registered manager was on leave at the time of the inspection, however we had a telephone call with them to discuss our findings and the action they were taking following the first day of the visit.

We observed how people were cared for and supported. Our observations included the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at records used by the provider for managing the service. These included the care records for 8 people, records about staff, meeting minutes and audits. We looked at how medicines were managed, and we checked the environment and equipment.

Updated 25 November 2023

About the service

Charlotte House is a care home with nursing for up to 60 older people. At the time of our inspection, 47 people were living at the service. Some people were living with the experience of dementia, and some were being cared for at the end of their lives.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider's systems for assessing, monitoring, and mitigating risk had not always been implemented effectively. For example, risks related to medicines management, infection prevention and control and safe storage of cleaning products. Following our inspection visit, the provider took action to mitigate the risks we identified and improve systems for monitoring these risks in the future.

People were happy living at the service. Their relatives were also happy. People felt safe, well cared for, and liked the staff. They were able to make choices and felt these were respected.

There were suitable systems for dealing with safeguarding alerts, accidents, complaints, and incidents. Staff learnt from these to prevent them reoccurring.

People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. They were involved in developing and reviewing care plans. People had access to a range of external healthcare services and had enough to eat and drink. There were a range of organised activities. Visitors were welcomed at the home and able to spend time with people living there.

The staff were well trained and given the support and information they needed to care for people safely and well. There were systems to help make sure staff were suitable to work at the service. People told us staff were kind, caring and polite. We observed this and noted people had good relationships with staff who knew them well.

There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. The management team were open and responsive to people's views. Stakeholders were asked about their opinions of the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 16 May 2018). In January 2022, we carried out a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures. We did not award a rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

We carried out the inspection based on the date of the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.