You are here

Archived: Angel Court Residential Care Home Inadequate

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 19 January 2019

This inspection took place on 16, 17 October and 13 November 2018. At the last inspection completed in June 2018 we found the service was rated as ‘requires improvement’. They were not meeting the regulation around effectively managing and governing the service. The service left special measures due to the improvements identified during that inspection. At this inspection we found the provider had failed to sustain and continue making improvements. The quality and safety of care provided to people had deteriorated significantly. They continued to fail to meet the regulation around effectively managing and governing the service and we identified further breaches of regulation. The service re-entered special measures.

Angel Court Residential Care Home 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 up to 25 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the service, many of whom were living with dementia.

People were not protected from the ongoing risk of potential abuse. The provider had failed to ensure robust systems were in place to identify potential abuse, ensure it was reported and investigate the concerns. The provider had failed to ensure robust plans were in place to protect people from further harm. People were also exposed to the risk of harm due to the provider’s failure to ensure their risk management processes were robust. People did not always receive topical creams as prescribed. People were also not protected by effective processes to control the risk of infection.

People were not supported by sufficient numbers of suitably trained, experienced care staff. The provider had failed to ensure training and supervision was effective and equipped staff with the skills they required to support people.

People’s human rights were not upheld by the effective use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s day to day health needs were not always met and instructions given by healthcare professionals were not always followed. People’s nutritional needs were not always fully understood and monitored by care staff.

People were not supported in a caring, dignified and respectful way. People’s independence was not always promoted. Effective systems were not in place to ensure people were communicated with effectively and given maximum choice and control.

People were not always fully involved in the development of their care plans. People’s needs were not always fully assessed and care delivered was not always in line with individual needs. People were not given access to sufficient activities and leisure opportunities tailored around their unique preferences.

People were not being supported in a service run by a provider who was keen to improve the quality of service provided to them. People were not protected by robust governance and quality assurance systems. The provider continually failed to identify the areas of improvement required within the service. The provider did not proactively seek feedback from a range of sources with a view to identifying where improvements could be made and constructively use this feedback to improve the quality of care provided. The provider failed to recognise and take responsibility for the failings within the service.

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 19 January 2019

The service was not safe.

People were not protected from the ongoing risk of potential abuse. People were also exposed to the risk of harm due to the provider’s failure to ensure their risk management processes were robust.

People did not always receive topical creams as prescribed. People were also not protected by effective processes to control the risk of infection.

People were not supported by sufficient numbers of suitably trained, experienced care staff.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 19 January 2019

The service was not effective.

The provider had failed to ensure training and supervision was effective and equipped staff with the skills they required to support people.

People’s human rights were not upheld by the effective use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s day to day health needs were not always met and instructions given by healthcare professionals were not always followed.

People’s nutritional needs were not always fully understood and monitored by care staff.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 19 January 2019

The service was not caring.

People were not supported in a caring, dignified and respectful way.

People were not communicated with effectively and given maximum choice and control. People’s independence was not always promoted.

Responsive

Inadequate

Updated 19 January 2019

The service was not responsive.

People were not always fully involved in the development of their care plans.

People’s needs were not always fully assessed and care delivered was not always in line with individual needs.

People were not given access to sufficient activities and leisure opportunities tailored around their unique preferences.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 19 January 2019

The service was not well-led.

People were not protected by robust governance and quality assurance systems.

People, staff and others were not fully engaged in the development and improvement of the service.

The provider failed to recognise and take responsibility for the failings within the service.