The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Bowland Lodge, a care home in Newcastle upon Tyne, inadequate following an inspection in January.
This unannounced inspection was carried out to check on the progress of improvements CQC told the provider to make, after issuing them with a warning notice in March last year.
Bowland Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 36 people living with a variety of needs including mental health and dementia related conditions. At the time of the inspection 30 people were using the service.
Following this inspection, the home’s overall rating has dropped from requires improvement to inadequate. Its ratings for being safe and responsive to people’s needs have also dropped from requires improvement to inadequate. The rating for caring has dropped from good to requires improvement. The rating for how well-led the service is remains inadequate and the rating for being effective remains requires improvement.
The service is now in special measures, which means it will be kept under close review by CQC to ensure people’s safety and re-inspected to assess whether improvements have been made.
Alison Chilton, CQC deputy director of operations in the north, said:
“Despite CQC telling Bowland Lodge where it needed to improve at previous inspections, they were still failing to provide safe care, and we found further deterioration.
“People were at the risk of harm because leaders hadn’t taken enough action to ensure effective systems were in place to improve the management of risk. This is particularly important for a service that looks after people who are vulnerable because of their dementia related condition or mental health.
“Inspectors found there were ongoing risks with the environment. For example, one person was at risk of absconding; their window restrictor didn’t meet safety requirements and the garden area wasn’t secure. Another person also managed to abscond on six occasions which is totally unacceptable and put them at significant risk of harm.
“Although it was promising that staff had training in areas such as mental health and alcohol use, this knowledge and understanding wasn’t reflected in care plans and risk assessments formulated by staff at the home, in order to meet people’s individual needs. Also, people’s strengths and levels of independence hadn’t been fully assessed by staff at the home to help them achieve their full potential and give them more opportunities.
“Following the inspection, we provided feedback to the new manager and provider who took our concerns on board and developed an action plan to address the issues identified. We will continue to monitor the service closely and if we’re not assured improvements have been made and embedded, we will not hesitate to use further enforcement powers to keep people safe.”
Inspectors found:
- There were ongoing risks relating to the environment, people’s care and support, and infection control which had not been fully assessed to ensure the safety of people, staff and visitors
- There was a safeguarding system in place. However, this was not always operated effectively. CQC had not been notified of all the safeguarding incidents at the home. This meant CQC were not fully aware of the level of risk to people
- Records did not always evidence that safe recruitment procedures were followed. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, although staff were not always deployed effectively to meet people’s emotional and social needs
- An effective system to manage medicines was not in place. There were gaps and inconsistencies in the recording of topical medicines and the storage of medicines was not always safe
- Records did not evidence that staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives and support people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice
- An effective system to ensure people were involved in their care and support was not fully in place. Records did not fully evidence people’s involvement. Care plans and risk assessments formulated by staff at the home did not reflect people’s needs. There were limited activities to occupy people’s attention.