• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Marlowe House

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

School Lane, Hadlow Down, Uckfield, East Sussex, TN22 4HY (01825) 830224

Provided and run by:
AUM Care Limited

All Inspections

17 and 18 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Marlowe House provides accommodation for up to 20 older people who required a range of personal and care support. Some people lived independent lives but required support for example with personal care and mobilising safely. People were able to stay at the home for short periods of time on respite care or can choose to live at the home permanently. Staff provided end of life care with support from the community health care professionals but usually cared for people who needed prompting and minimal personal care support. At the time of the inspection 10 people lived at Marlowe House.

People spoke well of the home and told us they were happy living there. There is a registered manager at the home. 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.

This was an unannounced inspection which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming. It took place on 17 and 18 August 2015.

The provider had not ensured the home had been properly maintained it did not ensure people’s safety or enhance their well-being. Servicing contracts were not in place for electrical and gas services. There were no environmental audits to identify where maintenance was required. Individual and environmental risk assessments to maintain people’s health, safety and well-being were not in place for everyone and therefore placed people at risk.

There were no quality assurance systems in place. Therefore the provider had not identified the shortfalls we found. Risks to people’s safety, the management and quality of the home had not been identified. People and staff were not given the information they needed and there was a lack of communication and involvement from the provider regarding issues that affected their lives and work.

The provider had not responded to people’s feedback when they had identified areas for improvement. People had identified they would like to have an outside seating area however this had not been addressed.

During the inspection medicines were managed appropriately and people received the medicines they had been prescribed. However, staff told us about practices that may not be safe. We recommend the provider should take into account the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance 2014, Managing medicines in care homes.

Although there were enough staff on duty to look after people there was a reliance on staff covering each other’s roles and there was no flexibility in the staffing rota. Recruitment procedures were not in place to ensure staff employed were of good character.

Staff did not receive the appropriate training they required to meet people’s needs. They had not received recent training in relation to safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Therefore staff did not fully understand their responsibilities in relation to these areas.

People were looked after by staff who knew them well, were kind and caring. However, care plans were not updated to reflect people’s current needs and there no evidence people had been involved in developing their care plans.

Staff monitored people’s nutritional needs and people had access to food and drink that met their needs and preferences. People had access to appropriate healthcare professional and staff told us how they would contact the GP if they had concerns about people’s health.

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.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action.

There were a number of breaches of the regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people and read comments from seven relatives who told us that people were treated as individuals and that they were given information and choices in relation to their care. One person said that 'I like all the staff, they help me with whatever I want to do'. Another said 'the staff are cheerful and will always help me when I need it'. People told us that their dignity, independence and privacy was respected. This was confirmed by our review of people's records as well as our observations.

We spoke with two members of staff who told us they all enjoyed their work. They told us that they had been a consistent team for some time and worked well as a team. During our observation we saw that staff interacted well with people when they were supporting them. We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and preferences. We found staff were respectful and maintained people's dignity, privacy and independence. For example staff explained carefully what they were going to do before acting.

We were shown examples of person centred care records which were well organised into separate sections. This provided clarity for staff. There was a comprehensive history on each which had been used to inform staff of individual wishes and preferences in relation to how their care was provided and how they like to spend their time. A relative's assistance was sought with this where the person was unable to fully contribute themselves.

5 March 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with seven people who were living at the home. One person told us that the staff were 'friends as well as carers'. This person also told us that the care was very good, the food was very good and the manager was nice and

approachable. A second person we spoke with told us they found the home very satisfactory. This person told us they believed the staff were very well trained and that the home had a very good activities programme. Other people we spoke with all commented on the staff and said they were 'lovely and very kind'.

We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We spoke to staff and reviewed records which showed us that people were protected from abuse and that their care was planned and delivered in a respectful and safe way.

Staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

Although we saw that people's health and welfare was promoted and monitored, we found that the provider did not have an effective system that regularly took into account the views of people and their representatives as part of their quality monitoring arrangements.