You are here

Archived: C & V Orchard Residential Limited Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 9 March 2018

We undertook this unannounced focused inspection of C&V Residential Limited on 08 January 2018. This inspection was prompted in part by information shared with CQC about the potential concerns around the management of people’s care needs and a number of notifications received about people sustaining injuries at the home. This inspection examined those risks. Prior to this inspection we carried out an unannounced focussed inspection of this service on 08 November 2017. Breaches of legal requirements were found and we took the decision to use our enforcement powers. We will report on this once it is complete. Previous to this we completed a comprehensive inspection of this service in September 2017. Following this inspection we used are urgent enforcement powers and restricted admissions into the home and imposed conditions on the provider’s registration. We required people’s risk assessments to be updated and reflective of people’s needs along with assuring adequate numbers of qualified trained staff were deployed effectively across the home. This was because people were at risk of harm. At this inspection we found the provider continued to not meet the requirements of the law and sufficient improvements have not been made.

At this inspection the team inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: Is the service well led and is the service safe. This is because the service was not meeting some legal requirements. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

At our September 2017 inspection we gave the location a rating of ‘inadequate’ and entered it into special measures. We identified seven breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) 2009. At this inspection we found the provider continued to be in breach of the HSCA regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

C & V Residential Limited is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates people in one adapted building. C & V Residential Limited accommodates 32 people, some were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living at the home.

The home currently has a registered manager in place. 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.

People did not have their needs met in a timely manner because there were not enough staff nor were they effectively deployed across the home. Staff did not have the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs effectively. People were not protected from the risk of harm because staff did not understand how to manage people’s individual risks to keep them safe. People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed and people’s nutritional needs were not always being met. The recruitment system operated by the provider needed to be improved to ensure staff were suitable to work with the people living at the home.

Staff had not received adequate training nor had their competencies checked to ensure care provided to people was safe and effective. The care people received was not always responsive to their own individual needs. People had mixed views about whether the service was well led. People were not protected by a quality assurance system that identified areas of improvement needed to ensure people received safe effective care. Th

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was not safe.

Risks to people’s health and safety were not managed. There were insufficient numbers of skilled staff to meet people’s needs. People did not receive their care in a timely manner. Opportunities were missed to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. Recruitment processes in place could not assure people were supported by staff that were competent and well trained in their role. People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. People were protected from the risks of infection.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was not effective.

People did not receive support from staff with the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People did not always have their rights upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Staff did not always follow the guidance provided by healthcare professionals. People did not always have adequate support to ensure they were eating and drinking enough.

Caring

Inadequate

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was not caring.

The providers systems and processes did not ensure that people were cared for. People were not always involved in choices and decisions about their care. People did not always have their dignity and privacy respected.

Responsive

Inadequate

Updated 14 November 2017

The service was not responsive.

People were not supported to take part in activities or hobbies so that they had interesting things to do. People did not have care which was responsive to their individual needs. People and relatives had not been involved in the assessment and planning of their care and support needs. People and their relatives knew how to raise a complaint.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was not well-led.

People were not protected by effective quality assurance systems. Systems in place did not provide staff with the means to do their job effectively. Care records did not reflect people's needs. People were unclear who was in charge of the home on a daily basis and staff were unclear about the leadership in the service. People did not always have their views sought and feedback had not been used to make improvements in the quality of service provided.