We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hallmark Chamberlain Court Luxury Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hallmark Chamberlain Court Luxury Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Chamberlain Court is a large residential nursing home in Tunbridge Wells set away from the main road. It is registered to provide nursing and personal care to up to 74 people.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff and managers understood how to appropriate use and dispose of PPE. There was a rolling training programme to ensure that staff members had up to date training in infection prevention and control.
Visitors who were clinically vulnerable could use a special segregated area of the home to visit, in order to reduce the risk of infection.
People and visitors we spoke with told us that the home was clean and tidy and a pleasant place to live.
Where people did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves, or were unable to communicate, the provider involved people’s families and other professionals to ensure decisions about visiting were made in people’s best interest.
Chamberlain Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Chamberlain Court is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for 72 older people and younger adults who live with dementia and/or who have physical or sensory adaptive needs. There were 38 people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit. The accommodation was provided on three floors. On the ground floor 22 people could live in Balmoral Community. On the first floor 27 people could live in Sandringham Community and Kensington Community on the second floor could accommodate 23 people.
The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. During the inspection visit the company was represented by two of their senior managers who were the care quality governance and compliance director and one of the regional directors. There was a registered manager in post. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.
People were safeguarded from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. People received safe care and treatment and they had been helped to avoid preventable accidents while their freedom was respected. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough nurses and care staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed. Suitable arrangements were in place to prevent and control infection. Lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.
Care was delivered in a way that promoted positive outcomes for people and care staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to provide support in line with legislation and guidance. This included respecting people’s citizenship rights under the Equality Act 2010. People were supported to eat and drink enough to have a balanced diet. Suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated care when they used or moved between different services. People had been supported to access any healthcare services they needed. The accommodation was exceptionally well designed, adapted and decorated and met people’s needs and expectations.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. In addition, the registered persons had taken the necessary steps to ensure that people only received lawful care that was the least restrictive possible.
People were treated with kindness and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been helped to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was managed in the right way and kept private.
People received person-centred care that promoted their independence. This included them having information presented to them in an accessible way. People were offered a range of innovative opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests. The registered persons and care staff recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. This included appropriately supporting people if they adopted gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex life-course identities. Suitable arrangements were in place to resolve complaints in order to improve the quality of care. People were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.
There was a registered manager and the registered persons had made the necessary arrangements to ensure that regulatory requirements were met. People who lived in the service, their relatives and members of staff were actively engaged in developing the service. There were systems and procedures to enable the service to learn, improve and assure its sustainability. The registered persons were actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.