• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Rose Villa Nursing Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

132 Tipton Road, Sedgley, Dudley, West Midlands, DY3 1BY (01902) 219091

Provided and run by:
M Jalal

All Inspections

16 June 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 October 2015, at which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because systems and processes were not in place to effectively assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people living at the home, including the maintenance of accurate records in respect of people living at the home.

We carried out a further focussed inspection of the service on 21 April 2016 to check that the provider had made and sustained the improvements they had told us they would make. At this inspection we found that the provider had failed to make the improvements they told us about. We also identified some other concerns which we raised with the provider on the day.

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 immediately 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 being 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.

Rose Villa Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 27 older people or people with physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection, 11 people were living at the home.

There was a manager in post, but she had recently been appointed and was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

Fire risk assessments were not in place to ensure staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in the event of a fire. The call bell system on the first floor was not fit for purpose and did not enable staff to respond to people’s needs in a timely manner.

Not all risks assessments in place for moving and handling involving equipment had been completed in line with the manufacturer’s guidelines, leaving people at risk of harm.

People’s medical conditions were not always treated appropriately by the use of their medication.

People were not adequately protected from the risk of infection control and requirements of a recent infection prevention action plan had not been met.

People were not supported in a timely manner as staff were required to cook meals as well as care for people. A shortage of nursing staff meant the manager regularly worked on shift to cover staff absences and was unable to drive forward the improvements required in the home.

Staff did not receive an induction and training that provided them with the knowledge and skills they required to safely meet the needs of the people they supported.

People did not receive a choice of meals and the quality of food provided was poor and not nutritious.

Staff gained people’s consent before providing them with care and support, but lacked knowledge of legislation protecting people’s rights.

People were supported to access healthcare services, but some staff failed to pass on information regarding people’s healthcare needs to new staff coming onto shift.

People were supported by staff who were caring and kind, but people’s dignity was not always maintained.

People were not involved in the planning of their care or asked how they preferred to be supported or spend their time. There were no activities taking place in the home and no stimulation for people on a daily basis.

There was a system in place to record people’s complaints, but there was no information available advising people how to do this and people were not aware of it.

People spoke highly of the manager and felt supported by her, but felt that she lacked support from the provider.

The provider had failed to take responsibility for the day to day running of the home and to offer support to the manager and the staff. The provider had failed to ensure the requirements of the action plan that was in place had been fully met.

We found six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

21 April 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 October 2015. At which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because systems and processes were not in place to effectively assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people living at the home, including the maintenance of accurate records in respect of people living at the home.

After this comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook this focussed inspection on the 21 April 2016 to check that the provider had made and sustained the improvements they had told us they would make.

This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements. It also covers some additional information that we looked at on the day. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Rose Villa Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rose Villa Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 27 older people or people with physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection, 15 people were living at the home.

There was a manager in post, but she had recently being appointed and was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 provider had failed to take responsibility and address a number of areas highlighted on the action plan that they had submitted to us.

Staff were not provided with the information they required to meet the needs of a number of people living at the home, as care plans and risk assessments were not in place, leaving people at risk of harm.

A number of people were admitted to the home in a short space of time, without the correct paperwork in place to enable staff to support them appropriately and safely.

Staff felt supported by the manager, but there was no formal staff supervision taking place and staff training had not taken place.

Staffing levels at night were highlighted by the manager as unsafe, the provider responded to the manager’s concerns and increased the staffing at night by the end of the inspection.

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

6 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 6 October and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. The home was registered on 10 February 2015 and this was their first inspection.

Rose Villa provides accommodation for up to 27 people who require nursing or personal care, for older people and people with a physical disability. On the day of the inspection there were three people living at the home, none of who required nursing care.

There was a manager who shared responsibility for both this home and another home owner by the provider. At this point in time, the manager was not registered with us, as is required by law. She told us that she had submitted her application to become registered manager. 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 living in the home and their relatives told us that they felt safe. Staff were aware of risks to people but not all staff had received training in respect of keeping people safe from harm and abuse and they demonstrated a lack of understanding on this subject.

Medicines were stored and secured appropriately. People received their medicines on time but protocols for ‘as and when required’ medicines were not always in place which could mean these medicines could be administered inconsistently.

Not all staff had received the training required in order to meet the needs of the people at the home.

Staff had received training regarding the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) but lacked understanding of this subject and what it meant for the people living in the home. This resulted in people being at risk of being deprived of their liberty.

Staff felt well trained to do their job and supported by the manager. Staff had not received supervision and not all staff had received training with regard to keeping people safe from harm.

People were offered a choice of meals at lunchtime, but could not be confident that their preferences would always be taken into consideration.

People were supported to access healthcare services such as their GP, the dentist and optician.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. We saw instances where staff spoke warmly to people and offer reassurance. However, we noted that people were not always treated with dignity and respect.

People told us that they were not always actively involved in their care plan and were not always asked how they wished to be supported. There were no activities available for people to participate in and staff were not aware of people’s personal interests.

People were confident that if they had to complain then they would be listened to and their complaint acted upon.

People considered the home to be well-led and the manager was described as approachable and supportive.

Monthly audits were in place to assess the quality of the service people received but were not effective in highlighting staff areas for learning and development. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, lessons were learnt.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.