• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ravensmount Residential Care Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Alnmouth Road, Ravensmount, Alnwick, Northumberland, NE66 2QG (01665) 603773

Provided and run by:
Moorlands Holdings (N.E.) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

11 May 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection took place 11 May 2015 and was unannounced. We carried out the inspection because concerns had been raised through a safeguarding alert about staffing at the home. We also checked on progress the provider had made in relation to action plans they had sent us following our inspection in January 2015, when we found continued breaches of regulations and had found the service inadequate. This inspection was to assess how the provider had responded to our concerns.

Ravensmount Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 30 people. At the time of the inspection there were nine people using the service, some of whom were living with dementia.

The home has not had a manager registered since May 2014. 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.

We found there were continuing breaches of regulations in relation to the maintenance of the premises and the cleanliness of the home. Gas supplies to the home’s kitchens had been disconnected in January 2015 due to concerns over the safety of the system. A key pad lock remained broken affecting the security of the building and allowing unmonitored access to the home. One unused room remained unsecured and had no handle on the inside of the door, meaning people could inadvertently become trapped in the room. Window restrictors had been fitted to some windows, although the devices used did not meet the requirements for care homes as set out by the Health and Safety Executive. Other windows still had door chains fitted as restrictors, although fittings had been moved to make them more difficult to open. Some fire doors were broken meaning they did not shut into the recess of the door frame correctly to make a smoke tight seal. Some work had been undertaken as to the maintenance of the outside of the building with some ground floor windows painted.

The home was superficially clean, although some bedrooms had dust and crumbs in them. Domestic staff told us they had returned to splitting their working hours between cleaning tasks and working in the kitchen. This meant the time dedicated to cleaning at the home had reduced to 31 hours per week. They told us that with the current hours they found it difficult to deep clean individual rooms. The provider told us he had changed the rota system for domestic and kitchen staff to ensure staff were available from 8.00am until 6.00pm.

We noted an infection control audit had been untaken in January 2015. However, this was largely tick box and where there were items ticked as not being in place, there was no indication what action had been taken. The provider told us they had met with the commissioners and infection control staff and had agreed an action plan. He said he would forward this plan to us.

We found the majority of lifting equipment had been checked and safety certificates were now in place. Weighing scales had been omitted from these checks and the provider told us this had been an oversight. People said there were enough staff at the home and we observed there was a good ratio of staff to people living at the home. We checked staffing rotas and saw there was generally three staff on day shifts and two at night. The provider agreed that cover by senior care staff had been an issue in recent months but was being managed, including the use of agency staff.

Staff told us they had undertaken some training in the months since the previous inspection, although senior staff told us they had not received any formal training on the safe handling of medicines since 2011.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. These safeguards aim to make sure people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The provider told us that all people living at the home had now been assessed in relation to whether they had their freedom restricted, as defined by the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the DoLS guidance. We checked with the local authority safeguarding adults team, who confirmed reviews were in progress.

We found care records had not been reviewed or updated since February 2015 and in some cases there were two sets of care plans in place for each element of people’s care; meaning it was not clear what action should be taken to support people. We found one person’s diabetic medicine’s had been changed but this had not been updated in their care plan.

We found there were continuing breaches of regulations in relation to quality monitoring at the home. Quality monitoring documents remained limited in their content and did not contain any action plans or dates for work to be completed by. The provider showed us a document concerning ‘walk round’ audits of the home which merely stated the home was clean and tidy. The audits process had failed to note the broken lock and fire risks highlighted during the inspection. Audits of care plans were also not recorded as taking place since February 2015. Some review of incidents and accidents had been undertaken, but this was limited.

We had previously found six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. At this inspection we found continuing concerns which constituted a breach of three regulations under the new Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 which came into force on the 1 April 2015. These related to safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing.

We have judged that the continued breach of regulations by the provider has had or may have a major impact on people. We have taken enforcement action against the provider and have issued a Notice of Decision to confirm the removal of the location Ravensmount Residential Care Home from their registration.

6 and 7 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 6 and 7 January 2015 and was unannounced. A previous inspection, undertaken in August 2014 found there were breaches of three regulations relating to cleanliness and infection control, maintenance of the premises, and quality monitoring and we took enforcement action against the provider. This inspection was to assess of how the provider had responded to our concerns.

Ravensmount Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 30 people. At the time of the inspection there were eight people using the service, some of whom were living with dementia.

The home has not had a manager registered since May 2014. 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.

We found there were continuing breaches of regulations in relation to the maintenance of the premises and the cleanliness of the home. We found some emergency lighting remained broken; there had been no plans made for refurbishment of the exterior of the home or to upgrade the fixed electrical systems. A key pad lock also remained broken affecting the security of the building. Some unused rooms remained unsecured and some windows did not have restrictors fitted that met current national safety standards. Work had been undertaken to repair some areas of the property, specifically in relation to areas considered a fire risk

We did find the overall cleanliness of the home had improved; there had been an increase in domestic staff hours, which meant they could spend time on cleaning rooms more thoroughly and the kitchen area had been reassessed by the environmental health service and had been awarded a five star rating.

People told us they felt safe at the home and protected by the staff. Staff had a good awareness of safeguarding and told us they would report any concerns to the interim manager or the safeguarding adults service. We found lifting equipment had not been checked and safety certificates were out of date. People told us there were enough staff at the home and we observed there was a good ratio of staff to people using the home. Medicines were dealt with safely.

The interim manager told us a full review of staff training had been undertaken and we saw documents confirming training sessions had been booked with appropriate companies. Staff told us they received regular supervision and appraisals. People also told us they were happy with the standard and choice of food available and we saw people were supported to take an adequate diet and sufficient drinks.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. These safeguards aim to make sure people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The interim manager and provider’s representative told us they had not yet instigated a process to assess whether people had their freedom restricted, as defined by the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the DoLS guidance.

People told us they were happy with the care provided. We observed staff treated people patiently and appropriately. Staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of people’s particular needs. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored, with ready access to general practitioners, dentists and district nurses. People said they were treated with respect and staff where able to explain how they maintained people’s dignity during the provision of personal care.

People had individual care plans and the interim manager told us these were being revised into a new format. However, we found that reviews of care had not always taken place. People told us they could raise concerns and complaints with the interim manager if they needed to.

We found there were continuing breaches of regulations in relation to quality monitoring at the home. Quality monitoring documents remained limited in their content and did not contain any action plans or dates for work to be completed by. In relation to cleanliness, we found there were still no regular cleanliness and infection control audits being undertaken, water temperature checks had only recently commenced and worn toilet seats had not been replaced. Other audits on care records and fire safety were also not up to date. Accidents and incidents were recorded but not fully analysed, to identify any trends or concerns.

People and staff told us the interim manager was making improvements to the home. Staff told us the overall management of the home was much better and they felt support had increased.

We found six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These related to consent to care and treatment, safety and suitability of equipment, cleanliness and infection control, safety and suitability of premises, assessing and monitoring quality and records. You can see what action we took at the back of the full version of this report.

6, 7, 13 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found '

Is the service caring?

Staff we spoke with were able to describe the type and frequency of care that people received and also talk about people's individual backgrounds, likes and dislikes. People who used the service told us, 'I love it, the staff are smashing'; I like living here, the staff are fine and the staff work around the clock.' Relatives we spoke with told us, 'I like it and the people are very kind. X is very happy here' and 'This is 100% better that the previous home (mother) was at. The staff are lovely, really care. They are smashing.'

We observed care being delivered and saw staff related well with people, were warm, supportive and spent individual time with them during meal times. We observed staff were patient and compassionate and supported people to be as independent as possible or addressed people's needs where they were unable to do so themselves.

Is the service responsive?

We saw from people's care records that the home worked closely with other services to deliver care to people who used the service. For example, we saw that people were supported to attend hospital appointments and had access to general practitioners and other health and care professionals.

We observed staff spent time engaged in activities with people such as cards or dominoes and responded to people's individual needs. Call bells were answered promptly by staff. One relative stated, 'The staff are very friendly, seem to have time now and never lose their cool.'

Is the service safe?

We found the provider had failed to respond reports from electrical and gas contractors who had identified work that required attention. The provider's representative told us, 'The work highlighted has not been undertaken and no one has been instructed to carry it out.' We found that fire safety procedures were not being followed with some fire doors wedged open and that regular checks had not been undertaken on fire and emergency systems. Staff confirmed that no fire drills had been undertaken recently. We have taken enforcement action against the provider and told them that they must improve in this area. We will return to the service to ensure that changes in service provision are made.

We saw that effective systems were not in place to deal with cleanliness and infection control. We found that laundry and domestic storage areas were in a poor state with water and leaves on the floor. Staff told us they had to carry wet clothes through the home to a dryer located in an outhouse area. We found that there were insufficient domestic hours allocated to keeping the home clean. This meant that rooms, carpets, windows and showerheads were not being cleaned effectively. We have taken enforcement action against the provider and told them that they must improve in this area. We will return to the service to ensure that changes in service provision are made.

Checks had been carried out on hoists and other equipment to ensure that it was safe to use.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The provider told us that there were no current applications in relation to DoLS and that they were currently looking into the matter in light of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court.

Is the service effective?

Staff we spoke with told us that they had access to training and had undertaken recent courses including areas such as first aid, dementia care and infection control. We examined the staff records of eight people who worked at the home and saw copies of certificates confirming attendance at these courses.

Staff we spoke with confirmed that there were now three care workers on a day shift and that this had improved the level of care that they were able to provide. We saw that staff had time to deal with people's care needs and offer the support required. We looked at the home's staff duty rota. We saw that staffing numbers seemed to indicate that the current level of staffing was being maintained with agency staff brought in where necessary.

Is the service well led?

We found that checks on the home and care were not being completed or identified action not followed up. We saw that checks on some fire safety systems had not been undertaken since October 2013, there had been no recent residents' meetings, action required to improve the gardens and exterior of the building had not been undertaken and that issues such as missing light bulbs or other maintenance issues were not addressed.

Staff told us that they had recently had supervision sessions, appraisals and some training. However, we found that there was no system in place to effectively monitor whether staff training was up to date and that all mandatory areas had been covered.

We found that audits of care plans were limited and that identified short falls in care records were not always followed up to ensure that plans were up to date.

We have taken enforcement action against the provider and told them that they must improve in this area. We will return to the service to ensure that changes in service provision are made.

10 June 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found '

Is the service caring?

This area is not applicable to this inspection.

Is the service responsive?

This area is not applicable to this inspection.

Is the service safe?

Appropriate steps had not been taken to ensure that the premises and equipment used in the home were safe and suitable for use. Regular maintenance and safety checks on the home's lift, gas appliances and mechanical hoists had not been undertaken.

Is the service effective?

This area is not applicable to this inspection.

Is the service well led?

In this inspection report no name appears for the position of registered manager. This is because there was no manager registered with us at the time of our inspection. The provider has told us that an application for a new manager is in progress.

Systems were not in place to ensure that equipment was regularly maintained and safety checked. The provider's representative told us he was unaware that the issues required addressing.

2 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned in line with their needs. A relative told us, 'I am very pleased with the care my relatives get and they are very happy here.' One person said, 'The staff are fine and I like my room. I am comfortable and have what I need.'

People told us the food was good and they enjoyed their meals. One person said, 'The food is not too bad. I get a choice and there is a bowl of fruit downstairs and I can help myself.' Another person told us, 'The food is great and I really enjoy the meals.' We saw people were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

We saw the premises and grounds were not adequately maintained. The standard of furnishings and d'cor varied throughout the house. Some areas of the home were not warm enough.

At the time of this visit there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly to requests for assistance.

We found staff had not all completed training in safe working practices and staff supervision had not been consistently provided. This meant there were risks that people received inappropriate care and support.

We found the provider did not have effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

28 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We have followed up our previous concerns to make sure that the necessary changes have been made and found the provider was now meeting the standard in this report.

We saw the provider had protected people from unsafe or unsuitable equipment. They had replaced and repaired the items identified in the last inspection report.

We found staff records contained evidence to show appropriate staff recruitment policies and procedures were followed. The provider had in place systems to ensure appropriate references and other checks were carried out prior to staff starting work.

24, 26 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke to three people who lived at Ravensmount. They told us they were happy with the support provided by the care staff. One person said, 'I am confident staff know what I like done and particularly for helping me to move around the home. The staff are really good and they know my routines.' Another person told us, 'The staff are fine. I am well looked after by the staff.'

We looked at the arrangements for people's care and support because we were aware there had been a recent safeguarding investigation. We were also concerned that it has been three years since a registered manager was in post and that this had affected the operation of the service.

We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was provided in line with their individual care plan.

We looked at the arrangements in place for infection control as we had concerns about this at our last visit. We found improvements had been made and we concluded people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

We looked around the environment in which people were cared for and the equipment available to support them in their daily lives. We found the provider had taken action to address the issues identified at the last inspection. We were satisfied people were protected from the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

19 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We included in our inspection a review of the premises, infection control and staff recruitment as a result of information of concern received from other organisations and our findings on the day.

People told us that they received good care and support from staff. They said that staff were, 'kind' and 'helpful.'

However, we found that people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

We concluded that the provider had not taken sufficient steps to protect people against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. Two people told us that temperatures within the home varied at times. One person informed us, 'At times it's cold, especially in the dining room.'

We found that equipment was not always maintained and people were not protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

The provider's procedures for effective recruitment of staff were not sufficiently robust.

We found the service employed sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff for the current occupancy level at the service.

The manager had been in post for six weeks prior to our inspection and was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. We have written to the provider to establish their plans to have a registered manager in place.

15 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who lived at the home, and three relatives, to find out their thoughts on the care provided at the home. One person who lived there said, 'I am very satisfied with the service I receive, the staff are lovely and I am very happy here.'

Other comments included, 'The staff work really hard to make sure we get the care and support we need. They are always cheerful and happy. The food is good and we are really comfortable' 'I'm fine here, it's not like being at home, but it is the next best thing' and 'I like living here. The people who work here are always pleasant and caring." One relative told us, 'I am so pleased he came here to live, he is a different person. He is happy and more relaxed and he has put on weight since he came to live here. I don't have to worry all the time about whether or not he is all right.'

6, 13 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Due to their needs, some people could not offer direct comments about the care they received. Others expressed satisfaction with the care offered. Comments included:

' 'The staff are very nice and kind. They know what help I need and come promptly when I ring the bell for them.'

' 'I feel better since I came here to live and I think it is because I am well looked after and don't have to worry about anything.'

' 'The staff look after us very well and I am quite happy living here '

' 'The manager is very kind and is always available if you need to speak to her.'

24 May 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke to people who lived in the home. They told us that they were encouraged to make decisions about their care and support. People told us that they felt the staff were well informed about their care needs and they felt that these were met in an appropriate way. One person said that he was satisfied that staff provided his care in a way that suited his individual needs. He said that he found that staff responded promptly to his needs and were good at their jobs. People said that there were enough staff. They said that they felt able to talk to staff if they had any concerns about anything and they were satisfied that their concerns would be taken seriously.

13 October 2010

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke to three residents about their medicines and they all said that they received them when required and that staff assisted them appropriately to take their medicines. They all told us that they had confidence in the way that staff handled their medicines.