The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Glenfield in Leicestershire, inadequate following an inspection in October and November.
Glenfield, ran by Heathcotes Care Limited, is a residential care home providing personal care to up to six adults who have a sensory impairment, physical or learning disability, mental health need or autistic young people.
A focused inspection was carried out due to concerns received in relation to the management of medicines and people's care needs. Inspectors looked at the key questions of safe, effective and well-led.
Following this inspection, the overall rating for the service dropped from good to inadequate. The areas of safe and well-led dropped from good to inadequate and effective dropped from good to requires improvement.
Craig Howarth, deputy director of operations, Midlands Network, said:
“When we inspected Glenfield, it was disappointing to see a significant deterioration in the level of care being provided to people which placed them at risk of harm.
“The provider failed to ensure people were living in a clean environment. For example, one person's bedroom had a stained en-suite with black mould present, and the communal hallways, kitchen, bathroom and lounges had a build-up of dust, dirt, stains and spillages which is unacceptable.
“We discussed our concerns about the cleanliness of the service with the home’s management and a deep clean was conducted. The inspection team visited after the deep clean, and whilst some improvements had been made, there were still unclean areas which posed an infection risk to people.
“It was also concerning that some staff weren’t aware of how to support or follow guidance to reduce people’s behaviours when they were distressed or behaving in a dangerous manner. This increased the risk of people's behaviour escalating resulting in harm to themselves or staff.
“We will continue to monitor Glenfield closely to ensure the necessary improvements are made to keep people safe and free from harm. If we are not assured people are receiving safe care, we will not hesitate to take further action.”
Inspectors found:
- Medicines administration records had not been transcribed in line with best practice guidance, meaning there was a risk people were not receiving their medicines as prescribed
- The outside environment was unsafe and poorly maintained with broken equipment and unlocked storage facilities containing harmful materials such as gardening equipment and open tins of paint
- The provider failed to ensure staff practices promoted good infection prevention control to reduce the risk of the spread of infection to staff and people living in the service
- People who required continuous supervision to reduce these risks did not always receive this
- Staffing levels did not always meet the needs of people living in the service
- Records demonstrated restrictive practices were used without having an updated mental capacity assessment or best interest decision in place.
However:
- All care plans were personalised and included photographs and details of things people liked, and things that were important to them
- Staff told us about people's individual preferences and knew people well.