You are here

Castletroy Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 31 May 2019

About the service: Castletroy is a residential care home that was providing personal care to 51 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People we were able to speak with spoke highly of the staff who supported them. These people said staff were kind, thoughtful, and caring. People told us that staff promoted their privacy and their dignity when they supported them. However, we found that people who were living with advanced dementia and spent all the day and night in their beds in their rooms, were not always supported in a caring way.

We also found some shortfalls. Some safety checks were not being completed about the home, which put some people at potential risk of experiencing harm. Rooms storing equipment, domestic cleaning items, tools and used incontinence items were not secure. A person living with dementia was seen visiting these rooms.

There was also some poor practice in terms of preventing infection control risks which could make people unwell.

These issues relating to people's safety resulted in a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

People received their medicines as prescribed. However, there were some shortfalls when supporting some people with as required medicines and controlled medicines.

We made a recommendation to improve their systems to ensure medicines were given in a safe way.

People who were living with advanced dementia who did not leave their bedrooms did not always receive good quality care. There was a lack of stimulation and consideration for these people. The management team were not checking if they were providing a dementia friendly service for all those who were living with this condition. This included the management of the premises.

We made a recommendation about improving the dementia care at the home.

Plans to support and promote people's well being who were living with depression were not always complete.

We made a recommendation about improving these plans and to update their practice.

The management team had responded to concerns identified at the last inspection. We received no concerns or found any indicators that people were being got up early. Various improvements had taken place in terms of promoting people’s safety at the home.

Despite this we found some shortfalls in how effective the management team were at identifying areas of improvement and taking action in these areas. Audits were not always effective. We had reservations about the culture of the management team.

A person’s relative told us, “I do actually take [relative] out to my house, and the words [relative] uses when [relative] is tired is, can you take me home now, that speaks volumes.”

People who could talk with us also spoke highly of the entertainment at the home. One person said, “I love the musical entertainment, we are told in advance if a singer or musician is visiting, other than that, there’s lots of things to do in here, you would never get bored.”

We found that people were being supported in a way which promoted their physical health. Health professionals were contacted when people were unwell. The home had a electronic record system which contained some good data, to show how the service was supporting people and how they were responding to the risks which people faced.

Staff had a good understanding about what abuse could look like and what they must do in these situations. The registered manager was checking staff competencies in their work.

Staff told us how they helped people to make their own decisions. One person said, “Staff go to my wardrobe and bring clothes out to show me, would you like to wear this, or would you like this.”

This service has been in Special Measures. Services which are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 31 May 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 31 May 2019

The service was not always effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 31 May 2019

The service was not always caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 31 May 2019

The service was not always responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 31 May 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.