You are here

Archived: Prestbury Court Residential Home Inadequate

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 7 December 2017

Prestbury Court Residential Home is a care home without nursing, providing care and accommodation for up to 48 people. People living at the service were older people, some of whom were living with significant dementia or long term health conditions. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people living at the service.

There was no registered manager for the service. 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. An acting manager had been appointed in May 2017 and was in day to day control of the service.

This inspection took place on 18, 22 and 23 August 2017. The first two days of the inspection were unannounced. The service was last inspected in October 2016 when it was rated overall as Good, with the key question ‘Well-led’ being rated as Requires Improvement. Prior to the inspection in October 2016 the service had been inspected in December 2015 when we found significant improvements were needed. At the inspection in October 2016 Improvements had been made. However, at this inspection in August 2017 we found the improvements had not been sustained.

We carried out this inspection because we had received information that three safeguarding alerts had been made to the local authority in August 2017. The concerns had been raised about the care people received at the service. The local authority’s safeguarding team and commissioners were investigating the matters and working together to keep people safe.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service was therefore placed in ‘special measures’ and enforcement action was considered. However, since this inspection the provider has applied to de-register Prestbury Court and asked for support from the local authority to help people move to other care services.. 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.

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.

We found the provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure people received safe and high quality care from well trained and competent staff. The quality monitoring systems were not effective and failed to identify and address th

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was not safe.

People were not protected from risks to their health and safety.

Risk assessments did not always contain sufficient detail to help keep people safe.

People were not supported to receive their medicines safely.

People were not supported by sufficient staff at all times.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, because staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report abuse. There were robust recruitment procedures in place.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was not effective.

People were not supported by staff who received sufficient induction and supervision to ensure they were competent to meet people�s needs.

People did not benefit from an environment that supported those living with dementia.

People�s rights were not always upheld as staff did not always follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were not always supported to receive sufficient food and fluids.

People were supported to receive regular visits from healthcare professionals.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 7 December 2017

Aspects of the service were not caring.

People did not always receive care that was respectful and promoted their independence, privacy and dignity.

People were not always supported to eat in a positive way.

People and their relatives were supported to be involved in planning their care if they wished.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 7 December 2017

Aspects of the service were not responsive.

People were placed at risk of not receiving the care and support they required to meet their dementia care needs. Care plans did not contain sufficient detail for staff.

People�s social care needs were not identified and planned for.

Complaints were well managed.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 7 December 2017

The service was not well led.

The quality monitoring systems were not effective and failed to identify and address the concerns we found at this inspection.

The provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure people received safe and high quality care from well trained and competent staff.

People's records did not always contain up to date and accurate information.