Chypons Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Managers met with people before they moved in to ensure their individual needs and preference were understood and could be met. Care plans were developed from information gathered during the assessment and shared by previous providers. The service worked collaboratively with involved professionals to ensure people needs were met and people were supported to eat well. Staff consistently sought people’ consent before providing support.

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 and their relatives were appropriately involved in the assessment and identification of people’s specific support needs.

The registered manager or a deputy manager completed an assessment of each persons care needs before they moved in. Normally a manager visited the person in the home or previous care placement to meet them and gain an understanding of their needs and preferences. A deputy manger told us, “We try to visit people before they move in, I think it is important to see people not just for us but for them as well so they can see who will be looking after them.”

The provider had systems in place designed to assess and identify people’s specific needs before they moved in. Information gathered during the assessment process was used as the basis from which each person’s care plan was developed. These systems were reliant to a degree on the accuracy of information shared by NHS and commissioning colleagues. Unfortunately, the service had recently experienced situations where the information they had received had proven inaccurate or incomplete. This had led to occasions where inappropriate admission had occurred. The service had recently been complimented by health care professionals for the positive impact the service’s support had made to one inappropriately placed individual.

People received the care they required and relatives told us, “Staff are very caring”, “The staff have all been nice to me and they look after [my relative]” and “I know that staff go into [my relative] regularly to check on [them].”

Staff understood people’s specific care needs and were able to access care plans via handheld devices throughout the service. Staff told us the care planning system worked well and commented, “I think the care plans are marvelous.”

People’s care plans were accurate and up to date. They provided staff with sufficient detailed guidance to enable them to meet people’s specific needs. The digital care planning system used prompts and alerts to remind staff of planned care interventions.

Most people’s relatives spoke positively of the quality of the service’s communication and the support provided to enable people to access health care service. Relatives’ comments included, “They are pretty good on communication”, “Health professionals they are very good, I hear from the Doctor and he emails me, [my relative] has seen the Optician and the Dentist, got new glasses” and “I Know that the doctor visits, I get emails on any illnesses in the home and what precautions they are taking”. However, one person’s relative was disappointed they had not been promptly informed of a recent event which had impacted on their relative’s wellbeing.

Staff and managers worked collaboratively with involved health care professionals and had made prompt and appropriate referrals when required.

Visiting professionals reported the service worked collaboratively with them to ensure people’s needs were met. They told us, “I have no concerns about the service.”

People's care records demonstrated the service proactively engaged with health care professionals in response to changes in care needs and acted on advice provided.

People enjoyed their meals during both site visits and relatives told us, “Staff are always popping in and bring [my relative] drinks”, “[My relative] loves the food, [They] thinks it is a hotel” and “Food is really good quality and [my relative] enjoys it, they provide fruit [that my relative] likes and has plenty at breakfast. [My relative] gets plenty of drinks, jugs are refilled and there are frequent hot drinks throughout the day.”

Care staff were complimentary of the service food and told us, “The home makes good food, never frozen always fresh“ and the cook said, “I know how to look after people.” Activities staff were on duty each day and provided a mixture of group and individual activities for people. During the on site assessment visits we observed people engaging with craft activities, story telling and quizzes in the lounge areas.

People were encouraged to participate in a range of activities in the service and external entertainers visited regularly. Church services were held and arrangements had been made to support people’s specific faith needs. During the first day of the assessment a farmer delivered an egg incubator. People and staff were looking forward to seeing the chicks when they hatched and one person said, "You are taking me back nearly 95 years."

People’s relatives were complimentary about how care was monitored. Relatives comments included, “Day staff are all very caring and try hard and are lovely, they joke and laugh with [my relative] and give a bit of joviality. They are genuine caring people”, “There are no relatives meetings but they do keep in touch regularly” and “We buy [My relative] new clothing, couple of times they have not fitted or not been the right size, staff have taken [them up] or altered them to fit. It makes [my relative] feel more comfortable, that is good.”

Staff were complimentary of the training they received and told us, “The training is spot on the first month was constant training. Some could be transferred [from my previous role] but moving and handling and fire had to be done again.”

The provider had recently sought feedback for people, their relatives and the staff team via survey. The responses received had been positive and complimentary. The service had systems in place to ensure staff completed all necessary records to ensure people’s needs were met.

Staff offered assistance and respected people’s choices in relation to how and when care and support was provided. People chose where to have their meal and how to spend their time. Relatives told us, “[My relative] does get choice” and one relative said that as their family member would move around the service to minimise the risk of falls, staff suggested, “They wanted to put a pressure mat down, they gave me the deprivation of liberty information.”

Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent and were observed discreetly asking people’s in communal spaces for consent before providing assistance. One member of day staff told us, “Most residents go to bed when they want to. After dinner those who are very sleepy will ask to go to bed. There are 3 people who like to stay up late till after I have gone. The night staff help them.”

Where significant additional restrictions were introduced to ensure the safety of individuals that lacked capacity these restrictions had been appropriately referred to the local authority. However, the service had not submitted necessary deprivation of liberty safeguard applications where people’s freedoms were restricted and the capacity to consent to these restrictions was variable. A breach of regulation was identified in the Safe section of this report in this regard.