You are here

Archived: Kingsthorpe View Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 June 2013
Date of Publication: 10 July 2013
Inspection Report published 10 July 2013 PDF

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 June 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff, reviewed information sent to us by other regulators or the Department of Health and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed and people were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

Prior to our inspection we received concerns about cleanliness within the home. We also received a copy of an audit carried out by Nottingham CityCare Partnership further to an initial visit carried out on 1st March 2013 and a follow up visit on the 17th April 2013. We followed up these concerns during our inspection. An infection control policy was in place at the time of our inspection; however we found the issues which had been identified within the audit had not been addressed by the provider.

We spoke to two relatives of people using the service. One person said, “My relative’s room is kept clean.” Another person said, “The home is kept clean to a degree. When they do clean, they do a good job.”

Upon entry we found no alcohol hand gel or signage about hand hygiene at the reception entrance. This meant good standards of hand hygiene were not being promoted upon arrival to the home.

We found pressure cushions which required cleaning and we also found some stained wheelchairs. We brought each issue to the attention of the manager on the day of our inspection; they confirmed these would be addressed.

A number of the individual bedrooms had no bins to dispose of paper towels after hand washing. These were made available on the day of our inspection.

Within the corridors, communal areas and individual bedrooms we found stained ceiling tiles in need of replacement.

We found one stained mattress in one of the bedrooms we examined, we also found cob webs on a number of the extractor fans below individual bedroom windows and the pelmets on some curtains had not been cleaned. The manager informed us the pelmets were being removed.

We found one person’s individual bathroom in the residential area had a dirty toilet brush, the toilet seat needed replacing and the floor near the toilet was stained.

We found commodes which had not been effectively cleaned after use. Two days after our inspection the provider informed us 22 new commodes had been ordered for the service.

We found the sluice was still doubling up as a store cupboard for the domestic staff and clean mops were being stored next to the sluice sink which posed an infection control risk. This issue had been identified in the previous infection control audit carried out by Nottingham CityCare Partnership; however the service had failed to address the issue identified.

Outside the kitchen we found the alcohol hand gel empty. When we examined the kitchen we were informed by one member of staff that the kitchen cleanliness had, “Gone to pot whilst I have been on leave.” We found the oven had not been cleaned and the oven gloves were thread bare. One staff member said, “The oven is filthy.” We asked if there was a cleaning rota available for the kitchen and the service did not have one. This meant that cleaning records were not being maintained for this area of the home and there was a risk that the kitchen was not being cleaned on a frequent basis.

In the laundry room we found the ironing board cover was stained and dirty. With regards to linen storage, all clean linen was stored off the floor. We also observed that systems were in place for the segregation and collection of dirty laundry; however we found some clean pillows stored in a bin. Cleaning audits were available within the laundry room for certain areas of the home; including individual bedrooms and communal areas. The effectiveness of these audits was questionable given the issues identified on our inspection.

We found old and fresh dog faeces in the courtyard area outside the home. People living in the home could access this area and this posed a risk. We asked the manager how often this area was cleaned and were informed every few hours; however the area looked as though it had not been cleaned as frequently as indicated.

Overall we found inadequate standards of cleanliness and hygiene in a number of areas throughout the home.