This unannounced inspection took place on 15 and 23 November 2017.

We last inspected Chilton Care Centre in September 2015 and rated the service as good. There were no regulatory breaches found during the inspection.

Chilton Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This home does not provide nursing care.

The care home can accommodate up to 40 people across two floors. The home was purpose built. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people using the service. Three people were in hospital. Some people using the service were living with dementia type conditions. The upper floor of the home was dedicated to people living with dementia.

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.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people were kept safe in the home. Regular health and safety checks were carried out including fire and water temperature checks. Personal evacuation plans were in place to assist emergency personnel in the event of the building needing to be evacuated.

Risk assessments were used by the provider to manage and monitor safe working practices. People had individual risk assessments in place with guidance to tell staff how to mitigate risks to people.

The service protected people from abuse by ensuring they were supported by staff who had undergone thorough vetting procedures. Staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and each person had plans in place to ensure they were protected from any potential abuse. The provider had a whistle-blowing policy which supported staff to raise any concerns about people who used the service.

People received their medicines in a safe manner from staff who were trained and assessed as competent to carry out these tasks.

Cleaning took place each day to reduce the risk of cross infection. We saw some areas of the home needed refurbishment. The provider had put in place arrangements to assess the environment of home and put in place actions to carry out the refurbishment. These actions such as replacing some carpets had already begun.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s care needs. Staff responded promptly to people’s requests for assistance.

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

Meals were served promptly as staff assisted people to the dining room. Kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and individual food preferences. Food was in plentiful supply and appetising.

Staff were supported to carry out their duties. We found new staff were required to undergo an induction in order to familiarise themselves with the service and the people who used it. A training programme was in place for staff who were also given regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

Relatives told us the staff communicated with them and were complimentary about how the staff kept them informed about their family members. Staff utilised diaries and handover records to pass on key information to ensure staff were up to date with people’s care needs.

We received only positive comments about how staff treated people with dignity and respect and were kind and caring toward people. Staff used humour to engage people and we found there was a friendly atmosphere in the home.

Care plans to describe people’s care needs were person centred and told staff how to meet people’s needs. These were regularly reviewe

During our visit we found people were asked for their consent before they received any care or treatment and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We spoke with several people who used the service. They said staff respected their choices to make informed decisions and have control of their lives. One person told us, “I get what I want here. They (staff) are very good and ‘ask’ rather than ‘tell’. One relative told us, “The staff like to involve us all the time, especially if your nearest and dearest aren’t themselves.”

We found care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way which ensured people’s safety and welfare. One person who lived at the home told us, “I’ve no complaints, I think I’m well looked after. One visitor told us, “I’m very happy with the care, the staff do everything well.”

The provider had made suitable arrangements to protect vulnerable people and respond appropriately to any allegation of abuse.

The provider had taken steps to make sure people at the home were protected from staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people by carrying out thorough background checks.

We found the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and promote their health and wellbeing.

During our visit we spoke with several people who used the service and with their relatives. They said staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us staff knocked on their bedroom doors before entering and were polite in the way that they were talked to.

One person said, “I am very happy here.”

People at the home said they felt involved in decisions about their care.

One person told us, “I feel that I am well supported.”

People told us they were happy with the support they received from staff.

One person told us,

“Like the home, the girls are very pleasant”

People said their care was monitored by the provider and the manager to make sure that it was meeting their needs.

One person said, “No complaints”

During our visit we spoke with people who use the service and with their relatives. They said staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us staff knocked on their bedroom doors before entering and were polite in the way that they were talked to.

One person said, “Everyone is really caring at this home, cooks, cleaners, the lot.”

People at the home said that they felt involved in decisions about their care.

One person told us, “We get lots of support and choice about things; I didn’t expect that.”

People said that staff helped them to take medicines.

One person said, “They come round to give you your tablets.”

Relatives we spoke to made comments about the support from staff.

One relative said, “At particular times of the day there doesn’t seem to be many staff especially when residents need two staff to help them.”

People said that their care was monitored by the provider and the manager to make sure that it was good enough.

One person said, “You do feel like you are in control, (the manger) asks you what you think.”

The inspection was unannounced. This meant the registered provider or staff did not know about our inspection visit.

Chilton Care Centre provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people. The home is set in its own gardens in a residential area near to public transport routes, local shops and facilities.

There was a registered manager in place who had been in post at the home for over five years.

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.

People who used the service, and family members, were extremely complimentary about the standard of care provided. They told us the home suited them and they got along with staff who were friendly and helped them a lot. We saw staff treated people with dignity, compassion and respect and people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.

The interactions between people and staff that were supportive and there was shared humour and friendly chatting. Staff were kind and respectful; we saw that they were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

We saw that the home had an interesting programme of activities in place for people who used the service, including meaningful activities for people living with dementia.

All the care records we looked at showed people’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and we saw care plans were written in a person centred way.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. People were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were accompanied by staff to hospital appointments and emergencies.

There were robust procedures in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and staff had received training about the actions they must take if they saw or suspected that abuse was taking place.

There was information about how to make a complaint at the home which was displayed on notice boards around the home. People we spoke with told us that they knew how to complain and found the registered manager approachable but did not have any concerns about the service.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the present needs of people using the service. The registered provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out robust checks when they employed staff to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions, appraisals and a training / development plan was also completed, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

People told us they were offered a wide selection of traditional and contemporary meals. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to make sure their nutritional needs were met.

We saw comprehensive medication audits were carried out regularly by the management team to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

The home was clean, spacious and suitably built for the people who used the service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We found the registered provider was following legal requirements in the DoLS.

The registered provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service and their family and friends. The registered provider organisation collected this information and provided additional oversight and monitoring of the home. The staff and registered manager reflected on the work they had done to meet peoples’ needs so they could see if there was any better ways of working.