Chesford Grange Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always well-supported or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to upholding people’s right to dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always uphold people’s privacy and dignity. When supporting a person with personal care, 1 staff member left the person’s bedroom midway through the process leaving the bedroom door open and the person partially exposed. Other staff members did not knock on people’s bedroom doors before entering. One staff member shared an incident where a person was not treated kindly by staff. We raised a safeguard about this incident and the new manager acted by carrying out an investigation. However, these concerns meant the provider could not be assured people were being supported with dignity and respect.

Whilst we raised our concerns about some practices impacting upon people’s rights to be treated with dignity and privacy, we also observed instances where staff treated people kindly and warmly. We observed staff whispering discretely when offering people with support with their personal care and staff speaking respectfully to people.

People told us they were treated kindly by the staff team and their dignity was respected. One person said, “Staff protect my dignity by closing curtains and doors. Particularly when I’m having a bath." Relatives told us staff treated people kindly.

The provider did not always meet people’s choices and preferences. When one person indicated they wanted to leave their bedroom, they were not supported to do so. During mealtimes, people were supported by staff, however the support they received was not always person centred. One staff member supported 3 people to eat at the same time rather than focusing their attention and support on 1 person at a time.

People we spoke to told us they received individualised care, and their choices were respected by staff. One person said, “I make my own decisions. I chose what to wear. Sometimes I stay in my pyjamas all day. It’s my choice. I choose when I go to bed and I like to get up early, I press my call bell, and the staff bring me a cup of coffee.”

Each person had an individualised care plan. However, language used in care plans was not always person centred. Care plans contained information regarding people’s individual hobbies, history and interests.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Some people experienced restrictions over their choices, such as having their bedrooms locked or remaining in their bedroom. There was not always clear rationale or best interest decisions evident to reflect these choices. During meals people were not always asked where they wanted to sit, people were served at different times and there was not always positive interaction between staff and people.

People told us their independence was promoted. Once person said, “I do all my own personal care. I like to keep independent." Another person told us, "I make all my own decisions about what I do and how I do it. I’ve got no complaints on that front."

Staff told us they encourage people to engage in their particular interests. One staff member said, “There are lots of activities, we try and get people to engage in anything they are interested in or to follow their hobbies and interests”, although they went on to say, “We don’t get out in the community much though.”

Care plans were in place and detailed people’s independence skills, preferences and abilities. However, some care plans contained outdated information and were not always reflective of people’s current needs.

The new manager responded to all our feedback. They increased observations of staff interactions, increased staffing support during mealtimes and completed best interest decisions with people. We will review the success of these new systems during the next inspection.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment. Three people’s fingernails were long and dirty, however there were no clear actions taken by staff to address this. One person’s pressure cushion and sling were soiled. These had not been taken to be laundered straight away.

However, people told us staff responded quickly when requested. We observed staff responding quickly and sensitively to people who were experiencing distressed emotions, providing reassurance and support.

Staff told us they received training to respond to emergencies. One staff member told us, “We have training to ensure we know what to do in a situation such as fire or if someone fell. I have just been rebooked onto a fire practical and British life-saving course. These are regularly refreshed.”

We reviewed incidents involving people who had experienced a fall. One incident was recorded clearly, although the follow-on action and on-going monitoring lacked detail.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of the staff team. One staff member told us, “I am treated very fairly, the provider makes sure I am happy.” Another staff member told us about the difficulties they had experienced over the change of management. They said, “Since the new manager has started the home has started to settle down.”

The provider encouraged staff to learn and develop their skills and qualifications. Staff were supported through supervision and regular staff meetings.