Chase House Limited

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes. The service was in breach of the legal regulation related to consent. The service had not acted in accordance with the mental capacity act 2005 and ensured any decisions made on behalf of people were in their best interests.

This service scored 33 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective. For example, we found where people were assessed as needing support to reposition; records showed people were not always supported to reposition in the timeframes identified in their care plans. This increased the risk of people receiving pressure-related injuries.

The provider had failed to identify that people's care plans and care records did not always evidence people’s health, care and preference needs being met. For example, ensuring people were checked hourly at night due to known safety risks in line with their assessed needs.

We found the service had not worked well with the Local Authority safeguarding team due to concerns not always being identified or reported. However, the service worked well across teams and services to support people with their health needs. Staff, nurses and leaders gave us examples, and records showed external professionals they had worked with to meet people’s health needs.

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. For example, a person’s care plan did not contain enough information to support decisions about when they should receive their prescribed emergency medicine. When people had hydration and urine output monitoring needs, these were not always well documented to ensure these health needs were met or concerns could be promptly identified. However, catering staff we spoke with knew people’s dietary needs and told us they fortified the foods they received. When people experienced falls, the service used their CCTV to check if there could be head injuries that needed medical attention.

The service did not effectively monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. We identified concerns in monitoring how people were supported when emotionally distressed, medicines safety and managing individual and environmental risks. The provider had not independently identified these concerns before our assessment. This increased the risk of people not experiencing positive and consistent outcomes.

The service did not support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). There was a lack of documented assessments for individuals unable to make their own decisions regarding care, such as using bed rails, restrictions on where a person spent their time, and proceeding to give a person personal care when they had refused. Some staff were unaware of what the MCA was. This increased the risk of people experiencing restrictive care practices that were not in their best interests. However, a person said, “I decide what I want and don’t want; they (staff) are very kind.” A relative said, “They treat [person] like a person and always check with [them] first.”