• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Harker Grange Nursing Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Harker, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 4HY (01228) 523753

Provided and run by:
Mrs Gail Helen Curzon & Dr Robert Neil Curzon

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

All Inspections

24 May 2016

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 23 and 24 May 2016. At the last inspection on 24 February 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in the way it carried out suitable background checks on staff, this action had not been completed.

Harker Grange Nursing Home is registered with CQC to provide accommodation for up to 26 people who may require nursing or personal care. The home is also registered to provide the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The accommodation consists of 12 single bedrooms, one of which has en-suite facilities and seven twin bedded rooms. The home has a variety of communal facilities such as lounge areas, bathrooms and toilets.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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. The previous registered manager had left in February 2016. A new manager had been appointed and was due to start work in June 2016. In the interim a temporary manager had been appointed.

People who used the service told us that they liked the people who supported them and thought they were caring and polite.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure in place.

The service regularly sent questionnaires to people who used the service and their relatives to ascertain they were satisfied with the service.

Staff had not been subject to sufficient robust checks to ensure they were of good character and the provider had not deployed sufficient staff to meet all of people’s needs. Staff were not receiving appropriate training to enable them to carry out their duties.

The service was not assessing risks to the health and safety of people who used the service and were not doing all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate risks. This included the nutritional and hydration needs of people who used the service.

Topical medicines were not being managed and monitored correctly.

The premises required repair and refurbishment and infection control was not being managed efficiently.

Care and treatment of people was not being provided with the consent of the relevant person and people’s right under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not being upheld. The service was not treating people with dignity and respect and was not ensuring people’s right to privacy.

Care being provided was not person centred and care files we looked at were not written in a person centred manner to ensure care and treatment of people was appropriate, met their needs and reflected their preference.

The service did not have effective systems in place to assess monitor and improve the safety of services provided. In addition they failed to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety, and welfare of people who used the service and others who may be at risk of harm. Furthermore they had failed to notify the CQC of incidents which is a statutory obligation.

We found breaches of the following Regulations:

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 19 (1) (a) (b) (c) (2) (a) (b) (3) (a) (b) – Fit and proper persons employed.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 18 (1) – Staffing.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 12 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (g) (h) - Safe Care and Treatment.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 18 (2) (a) (b) – Staffing.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 11 (1) - Need for Consent.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 14 (1) – Meeting nutritional and hydration needs.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 10 (1) (a) – Privacy and Dignity.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 9 (1) – Person centred care.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 17 (1) (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) - Good governance.

Care Quality commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 Regulation 18 (1)– Notification of other incidents.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’.Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe. If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

24th February 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 24th February 2015.

Harker Grange Nursing Home is registered with CQC to provide accommodation for up to 26 people who may require nursing or personal care. The home is also registered to provide the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The accommodation consists of 12 single bedrooms, one of which has en-suite facilities and seven twin bedded rooms. The home has a variety of communal facilities such as lounge areas, bathrooms and toilets.

The home has a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We judged that the service was not safe because one staff member had not had suitable background checks prior to working with vulnerable people. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff had appropriate training and were confident about how to protect people from harm and abuse. Staff, people in the home and visitors told us they had no concerns about abusive practice.

Suitable staffing levels were in place but we asked that the registered manager look at how staff were deployed at meal times so that people were given their meal in a timely fashion.

Medicines were managed appropriately with staff receiving up to date training. Good infection control measures were in place.

The service was effective because staff were suitably trained and supervised. The home had suitable disciplinary procedures in place. The management team understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were given nutritious food and special dietary needs were managed well.

The premises was being upgraded and developed to ensure it met people’s needs.

We saw that the care team treated people with dignity, sensitivity and respect. We heard from people in the home and their relatives that support was given in a caring manner. The staff understood matters of equality and diversity. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. End of life care was managed well.

We judged that the home was well led. The registered manager was well known to people in the home and their relatives. The staff team respected the registered manager, understood their roles and responsibilities and said they had appropriate support.

Quality monitoring systems were working well. The providers visited the service regularly and had an overview of the way the home was operating.

30 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had 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?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We found that people's needs were thoroughly assessed and any risks identified were well managed. The home was clean but the kitchen required extensive refurbishment, the provider was able to give assurances that this work was being carried out immediatly. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

Is the service effective?

People were supported by well trained staff who were, in turn, supported by their manager to deliver safe and effective care. Adult learning was being undertaken and training was being provided. However not all staff had received supervision or an appraisal. We spoke to the manager and they agreed to improve in this area.

Is the service caring?

People were cared for by professional and courteous staff who were knowledgeable about the people they cared for. Care planning had improved and records now reflected the care being provided.

Is the service responsive?

Records confirmed that people's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. The manager provided clear leadership and was aware of areas that required improvement.

16 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw that people were able to choose their meals and we were told that 'alternatives were always provided.' One person told us 'I sometimes take a fancy for things and the staff always get them for me.' Another person said; 'I am looked after nicely and the staff help me to have a nice bath when I want one.'

Everyone we spoke to told us that they were 'Looked after nicely' or 'Looked after very well'. A visitor we spoke to said; 'My relative is perfectly looked after. Staff know about their care needs and keep me up to date with any changes. I have no reason to believe my relative is not happy or well cared for'.

Everyone who lived at the home had a plan of their care needs. The information recorded was not up to date and did not accurately reflect people's current needs.

We found the home was generally clean and tidy and there were no unpleasant smells or odours. People had access to aids and adaptations to help them maintain independence or access facilities.

People said they were 'very well looked after' and 'I just have to ask and staff will do it or get it for me. They are lovely lasses and I don't usually have to wait long if I call for attention.'

We were told of the plans for the refurbishment and upgrade of the home. We saw the refurbishment programme was underway.

People told us they could raise matters with the manager or owner of the home. We were told "The manager is very proficient, any concerns I had would be sorted out quickly."