The Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out unannounced inspections of Waxham House care home in Ryde in March this year.
The CQC have now published their report, which has given the care home an overall rating of ‘Inadequate’.
For safety and responsiveness, the care home was rated as ‘inadequate’, for caring, effectiveness and leadership the inspector found the care home ‘requiring improvement’.
Promise to increase staffing
Following the tragic death of 84 year old Barbara Cooke last year, the owner of the home told the Coroner he would increase staffing levels at the home.
Although the CQC report states that following the Inquest of Mrs Cooke staffing levels were reviewed, the deputy manager told the CQC they were covering a lot of care, cooking and housekeeping shifts. They said the reason for this was that some staff had left or were off sick. This meant they’d not been not able to complete their deputy manager duties.
In turn this meant the registered manager was carrying out additional work resulting in them not having time to update care records and monitor the care provided appropriately.
Highlights from report
Full details can be found in the paper embedded below. A summary of the areas where improvements needed as follows:
The service was not safe
Processes for pain management were not effective and medicines were not always accounted for. Some parts of the home were dirty and infection control measures were not adhered to by all staff. Risks were not assessed and managed in a safe manner. Procedures to protect people from financial abuse were not followed by all staff. Safe recruitment processes ensured staff were suitable to work with older people.
The service was not always effective
Staff were not fully aware of all people’s day to day needs. Meals looked appetising, however, people did not always have access to suitable choices and on occasion insufficient food was available. New staff completed a suitable induction and staff received regular supervision.
The service was not always caring
Some staff showed a kind and respectful attitude whereas others did not. Some staff did not show respect for people’s dignity and privacy. People were involved in decisions about their care and were assisted to be as independent as they could be.
The service was not always responsive
People’s preferences were not always respected. Care plan reviews failed to show changes to people’s care where this was required. People had access to a variety of activities. People knew how to complain and were confident their complaints would be taken seriously.
The service was not always well-led
The providers did not always support the management team and staff, or effectively monitor the quality of the service provided.
People entitled to high quality care
Adrian Hughes, CQC’s Deputy Chief Inspector for Adult Social Care, said:
“People are entitled to services which provide safe, effective, compassionate and high quality care. We assess services against five key questions – Is the service caring? Is the service effective? Is the service safe? Is the service well led? Is the service responsive? – and rate each question and the service overall. Where we find a service meets our characteristics of good or outstanding then we will rate accordingly.
“If we find that a service requires improvement, we will expect them to provide us with a full plan setting out how they will address the issue. We will share our findings with local commissioners, and we will return in due course to check that they have made the required improvements.
“Whenever we find a service to be Inadequate, we will consider taking further action on behalf of the people who use the service. Providers of those services should take the publication of the inadequate rating as a signal that immediate action is required to improve the service”
Image: © Google Streetview
