Chaston House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. They were supported to meet their diverse needs. However, care plans and records were not always detailed enough and did not always described people's needs in a person-centred way.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. They told us they were happy with their care. Their comments included, ''It is well organised here'', ''They look after me well'', ''I couldn’t be in a better place'' and ''They make sure my needs are met, they are very kind people.''

Staff and managers knew people well. They were able to tell us about people's needs and how they liked to be cared for.

People received individual care and support. They were given choices and staff respected these.

People's care and treatment was well coordinated between the service and healthcare professionals.

Staff and managers knew who to contact to make sure people received the right support.

An external professional told us staff were good at recognising changes in people's health or condition. They alerted them when they needed medical support or had a query. They told us that staff monitored people's weight, skin condition and other needs. They commented, ''[Registered manager] is good at liaising with the GP surgery. They are prompt at making referrals and we can rely on them.''

A link nurse from the GP surgery visited the home every week to monitor people's health and wellbeing. They liaised with other healthcare professionals to help make sure people had joined up care.

People told us they had enough information about the home to make decisions and understand their care.

The registered manager was available at the home most of the time and regularly discussed the service and people's needs with them and their families.

Written information about the service was available for people who needed and wanted this.

People told us they were supported to express their feelings about the service. Relatives told us the provider was good at staying in touch.

Staff explained they offered people choices and gave them information about how they were being cared for.

The service was a small care home where people spent a lot of time together, with staff and the registered manager. There were opportunities for people to feel involved and make decisions about the service and their care.

People were able to receive visitors when they wanted. We met a visitor who was invited to have lunch with everyone at the service. They told us this was a regular event.

Staff told us they treated people equally. The registered manager was available to discuss anyone's access needs.

An external professional told us that people were able to access healthcare services with the support of the registered manager.

The design of the building made it difficult for some people to access areas of the home independently. There was a stair lift, but people needed to be supported on the stairs and to use this. Some people had sight impairments. One of these people told us they could sometimes feel isolated in their room. The registered manager told us they offered people support to move around the home and opportunities to spend time in communal areas with staff support.

The provider had employed staff who spoke different languages. We heard them conversing with people in people's first language.

The registered manager told us there were regular visits from some religious leaders who held services and offered people communion.

Care plans did not always record enough detail about people's diverse needs. For example, there was no information about how people's religious and cultural needs would be met. Some people had sensory impairments and care records did not include enough detail about how they should be supported with these.

People were not receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment.

We did not speak with staff about end-of-life care or planning for the future.

Care plans did not include enough detail about how people would like to be cared for at the end of their lives or in death. The provider needed to explore this with people so they could record wishes for this time.