You are here

Archived: Atherton Lodge Inadequate

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Atherton Lodge. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 July 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection on 5 and 7 July 2017. The first day was unannounced.

Atherton Lodge is a privately owned two-storey detached property that has been converted and extended into a care home. It is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide accommodation for up to 40 older people who require personal and nursing care. Some people at the service were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living at the service who required accommodation and personal care only.

There was no 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. There was a manager in post who had been interviewed by CQC for registration at the service.

At the last comprehensive inspection on the 12 and 13 December 2016 we identified breaches of Regulations 11, 12, 15 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 and found that a number of improvements were required at the service. People were not protected from the risk of unsafe care and treatment and the systems and processes which the registered provider had in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of care were not effective. Consent to care and treatment was not always sought in line with relevant legislation and the environment was not suitable to meet the needs of people living with dementia. We asked the registered provider to take action to address these areas.

This inspection found continued breaches of Regulations 11, 12, 15 and 17 as well as additional breaches of regulation 10 and 14 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014.

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

Medication was not administered safely. Risk assessments and care plans were not followed for the safe administration of one person’s medicines. Staff failed to protect one person from a known risk of harm putting this person’s health and safety in danger. Instructions provided by a GP for the administration of medication were not followed. Records relating to medicines were not always kept up to date in a timely manner.

We found that parts of the service and equipment in use were not clean. There were ongoing risks identified with regards to infection control. Eight call bell cords were found to be tied up in toilets and communal bathrooms near to people’s bedrooms. This meant people were placed at unnecessary risk as the ability to call for help in an emergency had been restricted. Rooms containing hazardous equipment and substances were not secure. The management of health, safety and infection control was poor.

People were not consistently supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. People were not always supported in the least restrictive way possible. Bedroom doors were locked at the service and this restricted people from gaining access to their bedrooms and possessions as and when they wished. Policies and systems relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards in the service were not robustly followed.

The registered provider’s statement of purpose identified that the home is able to support people living with dementia. However, we found that the environment was not dementia friendly and limited adaptions had been made to aid and support people who were living with dementia.

People’s privacy was not ensured as records were not held securely at the service. People’s rights to choice, privacy and dignity were not always respected.

People were not always protected from the risk of malnutrition and dehydration. Where

Inspection carried out on 12 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection on 12 and 13 December 2016. The first day was unannounced.

Atherton Lodge is a privately owned two-storey detached property that has been converted and extended into a care home. It is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide accommodation for up to 40 older people who require personal and nursing care. Some people at the service were living with dementia. Following the last inspection, the registered provider took the decision to cease providing nursing care. In conjunction with staff from the local authority and the Clinical Commissioning Group, those people deemed to require this level of support were found alternative accommodation. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the service who required accommodation and personal care only.

There was no registered manager in place and there had not been one since February 2015. 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. There was a manager in post who started in August 2016 and whom had submitted her application to CQC for registration.

At the last inspection in August 2016 we found that a number of improvements were needed in relation to, meeting nutritional people’s needs, planning people’s care and support, the environment, identifying people’s health needs and monitoring the quality and safety of the service. We found the service in breach of Regulation 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. 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.

This inspection took place to establish what improvements had been made and whether the registered provider now met legal requirements. We found that there were on-going concerns and breaches in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People were not kept safe from the risk of harm. Not all of the risks to people were assessed, reviewed or managed. This included the physical, medical, emotional and mental needs of people who used the service. Accidents and incidents were recorded but there was not always evidence of a follow up to ensure people's safety or to improve their care.

The registered provider had introduced a dependency assessment in order to demonstrate that they had the right number of skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Out of the seven assessments reviewed three were incorrect and one had not been reviewed since September 2017. If assessments are not accurate there is a risk that staffing levels may not be adjusted accordingly.

There was a new chef in place who was carrying out a review of menus to ensure that people had a greater choice of meals and drinks. The chef had received advice and guidance from the dietetic service. People were observed to have a poor dining experience. Staff gave people the option to sit at the dining tables but this was not well organised and some people sat and waited for 50 minutes for their meal. During this time they became unsettled and uncomfortable. Tables were not laid with cloths, place mats or condiments. Menus were not available to help people make a choice or identify their meals and the menu board was not easy to locate or read.

The Statement of Purpose stated that the service can provide support to people living with dementia and also people with sensory impairment. We found that the accommodation, adaptations, stimulation and specialised support was not in place to support people with these conditions. This meant that staff could not meet people’s needs in an effectiv

Inspection carried out on 8 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection on 8, 9 and 22 August 2016. The first day was unannounced. In view of the significant concerns found, we returned to the service unannounced on the 22 August 2016 to check on the safety of the people who used the service.

Atherton Lodge is a privately owned two-storey detached property that has been converted and extended into a care home.

It is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide accommodation for up to 40 older people who require personal and nursing care. Some people were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 40 people living at the service.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in place and there had not been one since February 2015. 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 registered provider had employed a number of managers since February 2015 however they left their post before being registered with the Commission.

At the last inspection on 16 November 2015, we found that a number of improvements were needed in relation to: meeting nutritional people’s needs, planning people’s care and support, identifying people’s health needs and monitoring the quality and safety of the service. After the inspection, we issued requirement actions in relation to breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 which we identified.

Following the inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan stating that they would meet all the relevant legal requirements by 4 January 2016. During this inspection we found that the registered provider had not met these legal requirements and we found further significant breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

CQC is now considering the appropriate regulatory response to the breaches we found. We will publish our actions at a later date.

People were not kept safe from the risk of actual or potential harm. Risks to people were not properly assessed, reviewed or managed. This included the physical, medical, emotional and mental needs of people who used the service. Staff did not always recognise safeguarding incidents and therefore action was not always taken to ensure that people were kept safe. Accidents and incidents were not always recorded or followed up to ensure people's safety or improve their care.

There were insufficient staff available to meet the needs of people. We found that many of the lounge areas were left unattended and people did not always get the support they required. The registered provider could not demonstrate how he was assured that the right numbers of skilled and experienced staff were available at all times to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

The management of medicines was not safe which meant there was a risk that people did not get the medicines that they required. Medicines had not always been available and medication which was signed for as given was found on the floor or tables. Medication was not always stored securely or in line with manufacturer’s instructions. Records in regards to medicines were not always accurate and did not provide enough information to ensure that the right medication was given to the right person at the right time.

People did not have a choice of nutritious meals and drinks. Some people's diets were very poor placing them at risk of malnutrition but these risks had not been identified. Advice from professionals such as a dietician had not been followed. People had a poor dining experience. Staff did not give some people the option to sit at the dining tables and other people did not get the support they required at mealtimes.

At the time of the visit the service provided support to some adults wi

Inspection carried out on 16 November 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection on 16 November 2015 and it was unannounced.

Atherton Lodge is a privately owned two-storey detached property that has been converted and extended into a care home. It is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide accommodation for 40 people. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people living at the service. There are two units within the home. One unit supports people who require nursing and/or personal care. The other has nine bedrooms and supports people who are living with dementia.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in place and there had not been one since February 2015. 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 manager who was present during the last inspection left the service in August 2015 and the regional quality manager has been overseeing the day to day management of the home. She informed us that she will leave this post in the next three weeks.

At the last inspection on 23 May 2015, we found that a number of improvements were needed in relation to: people’s rights in decision making, medication administration, nutrition, dignity and respect, planning care and support, and monitoring systems in place around the quality and safety of the service. After the inspection, we issued requirement actions and warning notices in relation to the breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 identified. We instructed the registered provider to meet all relevant legal requirements by 9 October 2015. At the last comprehensive inspection this provider was placed into special measures by CQC. This inspection found that there was enough improvement to take the provider out of special measures.

During this inspection we saw that improvements had been made within the service in relation to planning people’s care needs, seeking consent, staff training and support, the environment, and the management of medicines. In addition, we found that the registered provider had taken action to address the concerns raised within the warning notices. However, there remained concern in regards to meeting nutritional needs, monitoring health conditions and quality assurance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe and were cared for. People received their medication in a way that protected them from harm. Staff supported people in a kind and patient manner and it was evident that relationships between people and the staff that supported them had developed.

People were treated with dignity and respect and records kept about them reflected some personal choices. However, health conditions were not always monitored sufficiently to ensure that care and support provided was appropriate to the person’s needs and that remedial action was taken without delay. Records did not always provide an accurate reflection of the care that had been given.

Improvements had been made to how a person’s mental capacity to consent to care and treatment had been assessed and documented. This ensured that people’s rights were upheld. Where a person was being restricted or deprived of their liberty, applications had been made to the supervisory body under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were able to use a number of communal areas in the service and to participate in planned activities. People accessed the dining room for meals if this was their choice. Meals were prepared but there was limited choice that did not take into account the preferences of the people who used the service. The registered provider did not ensure that the food and drink provided met the nutritional needs of the people who used the service.

Some changes had been made to the service is order to better meet the needs of those people living with dementia, however, further improvement were required. We have made a recommendation about staff training on the subject of dementia.

Relatives were mostly satisfied with the care that people received but felt that communication with the management team could be improved. Changes that affected the service had not been discussed with the people who lived there or their relatives.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service but audits had not been carried out on a regular basis. There was not a registered manager at the service and the quality manager was due to leave her post.

Inspection carried out on 21 May 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection on 21 May 2015 and it was unannounced.

Atherton Lodge is a privately owned two-storey detached property that has been converted and extended into a care home. It is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide accommodation for 40 people. At the time of the inspection there were 25 people living at the Home. There are two units within the home. One unit supports people who require nursing and/or personal care. The other has nine bedrooms and supports people who are living with dementia.

At the time of our inspection there was no 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. There was manager who had been at the service since March 2015 but they had not yet applied to the CQC to become the registered manager.

At the last inspection on 11 and 12 December 2014, we found that there were a number of improvements needed in relation to: people’s rights in decision making, medication administration, dignity and respect, planning care and support, safety and suitability of premises and monitoring systems in place around the quality and safety of the service.

We asked the registered provider to take action to make a number of improvements. After the inspection, the registered provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches identified. They informed us they would meet all the relevant legal requirements by 16 March 2015. However, whilst the registered provider had made some improvements, they had not fully met their own action plan; we found a number of breaches and continued breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. We also identified some additional concerns. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of the report.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe and cared for. Relatives were happy with the care that their loved ones received and those we spoke with had no ongoing concerns. However, we found that the service was not safe because there were ongoing concerns about the safe administration of medication and the monitoring of some health conditions.

The manager had made improvements in the recording of accidents, incidents, and risks to health and safety. Remedial action had been taken place to minimise some risks for example falls. However, during the inspection, we saw that people were not always protected from risk of potential harm such as being left in wheelchairs without footplates or with no brakes applied.

At the last inspection the registered provider was required to ensure that people, who were deprived of their liberty, were done so in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where a person’s liberty was being restricted or they were under continuous supervision, we found that the manager had made the appropriate application to the supervisory body under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. However, where a person lacked capacity to make a specific decision or choice, staff failed to document why decisions had been taken in somebody's best interest. Staff had not followed the MCA 2005 code of practice. This meant there was a risk that the rights of people, who were not always able to make or communicate their own decisions, were not protected.

People told us that they liked the food; however, there was a limited selection of fresh vegetables, fruit and healthy snacks available. We saw that people did not always receive the help they required with eating and drinking and their independence was not promoted.

Activities were reported to take place, we saw no evidence of this during our visit and there was little social stimulation for people using the service. The television was on during the period of inspection in all of the lounges and people did not take an interest in it.

The registered provider had made some improvements to the quality audit system. However, we found that it was still not robust and failed to identify concerns such as those around medication management. The registered provider had not sought the opinion of those who used or visited the service.

We had asked the provider to take action to make improvements in regards to the safety and cleanliness of the premises. This has now been completed. People lived in an environment that was clean and so the risks of acquired infection were minimised. The registered provider had made some improvements to the building and further renovation was planned.

The registered provider had not previously ensured that staff were recruited in a safe way. On this inspection, there were improvements and we found that people were cared for by staff that had undergone the appropriate recruitment and selection checks to ensure that they were of suitable character for the job.

The registered provider had a safeguarding policy in place that staff were aware of. Staff were able to identify safeguarding concerns. The manager had reported safeguarding incidents to the local authority and to the CQC.

You will see that the overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to:

• Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve.

• Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made.

• Provide a clear timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of care they provide or we will seek to take further action, for example cancel their registration.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains 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 the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will 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 we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Inspection carried out on 10 and 11 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This Inspection took place on the 10 and 11 of December 2014 and the first day was unannounced. Our previous inspection took place on 6 August 2014 and concentrated on the management of medicines within the service. We found the service was not meeting the standard and following that, the provider sent us an action plan telling us about the improvements they intended to make.

On this visit we looked at whether or not changes had been made. We found people were still not protected from the risks associated with medicine management. We also found additional concerns in relation to the environment, care delivery, records and quality assurance.

Atherton Lodge is a privately owned two-storey detached property that has been converted and extended into a care home. It is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide accommodation for 40 people. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living at the home. There are two units within the home. One unit supports people who require nursing and/or personal care. The other has nine bedrooms and supports people who are living with dementia. The home is situated within a mile of Ellesmere Port town centre.

There was a registered manager in place and they have been there since March 2014. 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.

We found that there were a specific number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

People who we spoke to and relatives told us that they felt safe and cared for. They said that the registered manager was approachable and that they had already made some improvements. We saw that there had been no complaints recorded about the care since our last inspection.

Whilst we observed, at times, people received appropriate care, we also saw occasions where people were not treated with kindness or respect.

We found that people at Atherton Lodge were still not were not getting their medications as prescribed and that medicines were also not being stored correctly.

We were concerned that the premises were not safe due to a lack of maintenance and adequate safety checks. The home was cold in places and radiators were turned off. We found that there was a risk that people could leave the building without staff being alerted. The home was not clean and this posed a risk to people as they were not protected from infections.

Care plan documentation described people’s needs upon admission and a number of care plans were put in place to guide staff. However, these did not consistently reflect or record changes in someone’s physical or mental health. Appropriate care was not delivered consistently and checks on people’s diet and fluid intake were not always completed.

People’s capacity was not assessed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (MCA). We found care records did not consider people’s capacity to make decisions which meant there was a risk that their rights were not protected. The manager or staff delegated decision making to family members when there was no evidence legal authority in place.

The manager had not followed the appropriate recruitment checks. This meant that they had not made sure that people were receiving their care from staff that had been thoroughly vetted to ensure they were suitable to do the job

Both the manager and the provider had failed to identified or rectify some of the issues we found during the inspection during their own quality assurance process.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 6 August 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

The inspection team was made up of one Pharmacist Inspector. We talked with 2 members of the nursing staff and the manager. We set out to answer one of our five key questions:

Is the Service Safe?

We found people were not protected from the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have effective processes in place to make sure medicines were managed safely. We looked at records about medication and medication for 14 people who were living in the home on the day of our visit and we found there were some concerns about medicines or the records relating to medicines for all of those people.

We found medicines which were no longer needed were not stored securely. We found that appropriate arrangements were not in place in relation to the recording of medicines. We found that medicines were not administered safely. We found that arrangements made to give people their medication as directed by the manufacturers, especially with regard to food were poor. We found there was no information available to guide nurses as to how to give medicines which were prescribed to be given when required. We also found that there was no information recorded to guide nurses or staff as to where to apply creams.

We found appropriate arrangements had been made in relation to obtaining medication.

Inspection carried out on 25 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service Safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found one DoLs application was in the process of being submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place. We discussed this with the deputy manager who understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

The people we spoke with said they felt safe living at the home. Comments from them included; "I have no concerns. I feel very safe here" and "I feel as safe here as I did at home".

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care provided and their needs had been met. Our observations and discussions with staff showed they were knowledgeable about the people they supported and what people's care needs were. One person told us; "They are very good to me here. I have no complaints".

Is the service caring?

During our observations on the dementia unit in the morning, we saw staff helped people to make floral display's. In the afternoon, we saw staff sitting and talking with people who used the service. We observed that staff spoke to people in a caring and compassionate manner. When people became confused and upset, staff dealt with the situation calmly and were attentive to people's needs. We conducted a period of observation in the lounge area of the unit that provided nursing and personal care. We observed that staff spoke to people in a caring and compassionate manner. One person told us; "If I feel down, they help me and I feel better then".

Is the service responsive?

We saw that before a person started to use the service, an assessment of their needs and abilities was undertaken. The care plans showed how the needs of the people who used the service were to be met, including any risks to their well-being. Each person was allocated a key worker and reviews of each person's care took place on a monthly basis or sooner if required. People's personal preferences such as their daily and bedtime routines were also taken into account. This had been done with the involvement of the person where possible as well as their relatives.

Is the service well led?

A new manager had recently been appointed at the home. Staff and people who used the service spoke highly of him and said they were listened to when concerns or suggestions were made.

We saw the service carried out monthly audits of various aspects of the service's operations such as medication management, care planning, people's finances and the homes environment. Where concerns were identified, processes were in place to enable appropriate changes to be made.

Before our inspection we examined our records and found the service did not have a manager that was registered with us. The current manager had been in post for eight weeks prior to our inspection. The manager agreed to start the registration process without delay as his probationary period with the service had been completed. We discussed this with the provider before our inspection. They told us they would ensure the manager would start the registration process immediately so that the service was not in breach of the conditions of its registration with CQC.

Inspection carried out on 31 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service. They all told us they were happy at Atherton Lodge and had no concerns with the care provided. Comments from them included: �It�s very good. I am content here. They (Staff) made me a cake and gave me a card for my birthday recently� and �I�m happy here. The food is alright too.�

We spoke with two relatives of people that used the service. Comments from them included: �There is nothing bad to say about the care here. They talk to (my relative) about his time in the army. He responds to this which is key for him� and �The staff are brilliant. I�m thrilled to bits.�

We found the home to be very clean throughout. All of the bathrooms we examined were in a good state of repair. In addition to this the carpets and flooring were in very good condition.

We looked at five staff files during our inspection. We found that Criminal Record Bureau(CRB) disclosure checks were completed for all members of staff. We found that before any member of staff began employment with the company they required two references.

We found there was an effective system in place to deal with complaints. It was evident there was a detailed audit trail of how concerns were managed and dealt with to the complainants satisfaction were possible.

Three of the care plans we looked at identified people who were at risk of falls. We found that regular safe and well being checks had been undertaken and recorded.

Inspection carried out on 6 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On this visit we looked at a sample of six care plans. All of which were people who had recently moved into Atherton Lodge. We found that all contained pre-admittance assessments and had care plans completed in relation to health, personal hygiene and social needs. Records showed that when a person had recently fallen their care plans were updated to reflect this with clear guidance in place of how staff were to manage that risk. This had addressed the concerns we raised with the provider during our last inspection where it was evident that one person had not received a pre-admittance assessment prior to them living at Atherton Lodge.

We did not speak with people who used the service during this visit as people we spoke with on our previous inspection were happy with the care they received and considered that they were well looked after. Relatives we spoke with at our last inspection said that their relation's health had improved since coming to live at Atherton Lodge.

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2011

During a routine inspection

People spoken with reported that they were treated well by staff. Comments received included; �Staff look after me�; �I�ve never been happier� and �Everything is okay as far as I�m concerned�. One resident reported that �There are not a lot of activities� and three other residents stated that they would like to see more activities.

People also informed us that they were satisfied with the standard of care provided and were of the opinion that staff understood their needs. Comments received included: �The home is very nice and comfortable and I am looked after well� and �The staff are very caring and I am happy living here.�

We observed people living at Atherton Lodge to be relaxed in their home environment and in the company of the staff team. No complaints were received from the people using the service or their representatives during the visit.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)