The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Rushden Park nursing home in Rushden, Northamptonshire, inadequate and has placed it in special measures following an inspection in February.
The unannounced inspection was prompted in part following an incident where someone using the service died. This incident is being investigated by CQC to determine if any further regulatory action should be taken. Due to the potential concerns raised following the incident, CQC looked at management of risk, staffing levels and management oversight.
Rushden Park is a residential care home, run by Methodist Homes. At the time of the inspection, it was providing nursing and personal care to 58 people.
Following the inspection, the home’s overall rating has declined from requires improvement to inadequate. The ratings for safe, effective, responsive and well-led, have declined to inadequate. The rating for caring has dropped from good to requires improvement.
The service is now in special measures, which means it will be kept under close review by CQC.
Craig Howarth, CQC deputy director of operations in the midlands, said:
“When we inspected Rushden Park, it was concerning that the care being delivered, wasn’t of the standard that people should expect to receive.
“Inspectors found leaders had no effective oversight and monitoring of the service which had resulted in poor outcomes for people. Also, complaints made by people and their relatives weren't always responded to and investigated in a timely manner.
“We found people weren’t always protected from risks associated with their health conditions. For example, people's care plans didn't include details regarding how many days of no bowel movements should be a concern. It was worrying that one person had no bowel movement for eight days and there was no evidence the GP had been contacted for advice which could have put the person at risk. There was no plan or risk assessment in place for someone who required support to manage their diabetes. This meant staff didn’t know what action to take if the person’s sugar levels were too high or low, which could put them at risk of harm.
“Additionally, one-to-one care was not always provided for people where they needed it for their safety. We received mixed feedback from people and their relative’s concerning the leadership and culture of the service including attitude of the staff. We heard from staff that they didn’t feel listened to when they raised concerns.
“Following our inspection, we reported our findings to the provider, so they know the areas where we expect to see rapid improvement. They have submitted an action plan. If sufficient progress has not been made, we’ll not hesitate to take further action to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing.”
The inspectors found:
- People were not always supported by enough staff to meet their needs. Staff told us there was not always enough of them on shift which had an impact on people's care. Staffing levels had an impact on the support people received with their food and drinks
- People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice
- Not all staff had received training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they supported. Staff received regular supervision meetings. However, inspectors were not satisfied these were effective in supporting staff. There was no system in place to monitor and observe staff practice to identify areas of development
- People experienced task-led, rather than person-centred care which resulted in their dignity not being promoted or protected. People were not always supported to maintain their independence and have the opportunity to take part in activities and access the local community
- Staff had access to people's care plans and risk assessments however, it was unclear if these were read, understood, and followed by staff.