Archived: Probert Court Nursing Home

Updated 5 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was prompted in part by information of concern we received about the care provided at the home. These concerns related to a high number of safeguarding incidents being report by the provider and allegations of neglect. We looked at the concerns raised at this inspection about this.

The inspection took place on 12 and 13 July 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of three inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who had experience of using or caring for a person who uses this type of care service.

We reviewed information we held about the service, this included information received from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority who commission services to gather their feedback. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We spoke with 12 people and eight relatives. As some people were unable to share their views with us, we used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who were unable to talk to us. We also spoke with two members of care staff, a nurse, the registered manager, the quality manager and the head of service.

We looked at six care records, as well as 10 medication records. We reviewed three staff files and records held in relation to accidents and incidents, complaints and quality assurance audits.

Updated 5 September 2018

The inspection took place on 12 and 13 July 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered under the new provider in March 2017.

Probert Court is a ‘care home’ for people who require a period of assessment while their long term care options are considered. People stay at the service for a period between seven days up to six weeks while assessments of their needs takes place. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service accommodates 25 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection, there were 18 people living at the service.

There was a manager registered with us. However, we were made aware prior to the inspection that the registered manager had recently left their role at the home and that an interim manager was 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.

People did not always feel safe. Incidents that may have required investigation under safeguarding procedures had not been investigated and risks to people were not always managed to keep people safe. Although the service was staffed appropriately, people continued to have extended delays waiting for support. Medicines were not always managed safely.

Although people’s dietary requirements had been met, we found that mealtimes were not a sociable experience for people. People’s rights were not consistently upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act but staff knowledge of this was inconsistent. People were supported by staff who had received training, although staff did not always feel the training was sufficient. People had access to healthcare services where required.

People were not always treated with dignity as staff did not know people’s names. People’s choices in relation to their personal care was not always respected. People did not have opportunity to develop relationships with staff as their interactions were limited to when care tasks were being provided.

People were not involved in the planning and review of their care and did not consistently know the reasons for their stay at the home. There was a lack of activities for people. Where complaints were made, these had been investigated and resolved by the provider.

There had been a recent change in management that had caused instability at the home. Audits completed had not identified the areas for improvement found at this inspection. Records held were not always detailed or accurate. People were asked for their feedback and this was acted upon.