You are here

Archived: Madeley Manor Care Home Inadequate

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 21 June 2018

This inspection took place on 3, 8 and 30 May 2018 and was unannounced.

Madeley Manor is a ‘care home’. 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. Care and support is provided over three floors with communal areas on the ground floor. Madeley Manor Care Home is registered to provider care support for up to 42 people. At the start of this inspection 31 people were using the service.

There was a manager and they were in the process of becoming the ‘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.

This was the first inspection under this registration. 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 immediate 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 begin 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.

Risks to people's safety, health and wellbeing were not always suitably assessed and managed and plans in place to manage risks were not always followed by staff.

There was not always enough suitably skilled staff, deployed effectively to keep people safe or to meet their needs. Staff were not always trained to provide safe and effective care.

People were not always protected from the risks of avoidable harm and abuse because incidents of possible abuse were not always identified and reported to the local authority as required. Action was not always taken to protect people from further occurrences.

We found that medicines were not managed safely and people were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed.

Systems in place to consistently assess and monitor risks to people and the quality of care provided were not operated effectively. This meant that issues with the safety and quality of the care were not reliably identified and rectified.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff do not support them in the least restrictive way possible.

The service looked clean and tidy, however, an infection control audit identified areas that required action and no action had been taken to resolve these.

People and relatives had made complaints that had not been responded to or investigated.

People were not supported to have detailed and personalised plans of care at the end of their life.

People told us they had access to healthcare professionals when they required them, however we found that professional advice was not always followed or incorporated into people’s plans of care.

People enjoyed the food on offer. However, some people were not offered diet choices that promoted their health and wellbeing.

People’s care plans did not contain enough detail for staff to provide consistently and personalised care.

People told us that staff treated them with kindness and compassion. However, people were not always offered the reassurances they needed because staff did not have time to spend with them. People’s privacy and dignity was not always respected and promoted.

People enjoyed the activities provided for them. However, they felt that more could be offered to occupy their time.

We identified eight breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 21 June 2018

The service was not safe.

People's risks were not always suitably assessed and planned for. Risk management plans were not always followed by staff to keep people safe and well. Medicines were not safely and properly managed to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were not always enough staff to provide safe care to people.

People were not always protected from potential harm and abuse because unexplained injuries were not reported and investigated.

The service looked clean and tidy. However, an infection control identified some issues that required action and we saw that none had been taken.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 21 June 2018

The service was not effective.

People were not supported to consent to their care and treatment.

Staff were not always suitably trained to provide effective care to people.

People had access to healthcare professionals but professional advice was not incorporated into care plans to ensure it was followed by staff. Handovers were ineffective in sharing the information staff needed to provide effective care.

People enjoyed the food on offer, however some people were not always offered choices appropriate to meet their health needs.

Improvements were required to the adaption and design of the service to ensure it suitably met people's needs.

Caring

Inadequate

Updated 21 June 2018

The service was not consistently caring.

People told us that staff were kind and caring towards them, however staff did not always have time to spend with people to provide the reassurances they needed.

People were not consistently supported to make choices and decisions and their choices were not always respected.

People felt that their dignity was respected. However, we found that people's privacy was not always respected because their personal care records were not always kept securely.

The provider had not ensured that systems and processes were in place to support the service to be as caring towards people as it could be.

People were supported to maintain important personal relationships and their relatives and friends could visit without restriction.

Responsive

Inadequate

Updated 21 June 2018

The service was not responsive.

Complaints were not listened to and acted upon in order to make improvements to the care provided.

People who were receiving end of life care did not have suitable and personalised plans in place.

People were not supported to have accurate, individualised care plans that included their preferences and life history. Therefore staff did not always have the information they needed to provide personalised care.

People enjoyed the activities on offer but felt there could be more to occupy their time.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 21 June 2018

The service was not well-led.

Systems in place to monitor and improve the safety and quality of the service were not effective and not operated by a person with the required skills and experience.

People's feedback had not been listened to or responded to.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of completing their registration with us. However, not all people knew who the manager was.

Staff felt the manager and provider were approachable but staff feedback was not always listened and responded to.