The Meadows Nursing Home, in Bromsgrove, has been rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and placed in special measures to protect people, following an inspection carried out in February.
The Meadows is run by Southern CC Limited, and provides accommodation and personal care to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The service can support up to 36 people. There were 30 people living at the home at the time of this inspection.
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns raised with CQC around the management and safety of the service.
Following this visit, the home’s overall rating has dropped from requires improvement to inadequate, as have its ratings for being safe and well-led. Its ratings for being effective and caring have changed from good to requires improvement. It has again been rated requires improvement for being responsive.
As well as placing the service in special measures, CQC have also issued two warning notices, to focus the service’s attention on the areas where immediate action needs to be taken. CQC will keep the home under close review and will return to ensure people are safe and it will continue to monitor to check sufficient improvements are being made. If CQC doesn’t see rapid and widespread improvements, further action will be taken.
Craig Howarth, CQC deputy director of operations in the midlands, said:
“When we inspected The Meadows Nursing Home, we were disappointed to find poor management and leadership across the home, as well as inadequate systems to keep people safe. Some issues we found at the last inspection, hadn’t been addressed little action had been taken to make improvements we told them to, to make it a safe place for people to live.
“We found not everyone felt safe at the home and not all staff had safeguarding training. While the manager responded to safeguarding concerns we found during our visit, the safeguarding policy wasn’t always followed, and the provider didn’t always notify the CQC and the local authority when incidents occurred. For example, the provider didn’t inform us about people’s unexplained bruising and skin damage which could put people at risk of further harm.
"The Meadows had failed to make the environment safe for people to live in as we saw chemicals weren’t always locked away and prescribed creams weren’t stored safely. We also found large items of furniture hadn’t been secured to walls to prevent them accidently tipping over and hot surfaces weren’t covered. This put people, particularly those with dementia who can become easily confused, at risk of avoidable harm.
“We couldn’t be sure people were receiving their medicines safely as we found stock discrepancies and medicine charts weren’t fully completed. Also, leaders hadn’t put care plans in place for people taking medicines such as antibiotics and there wasn’t enough guidance for staff when administering medicines when required, such as pain medication.
“It was concerning that staff didn’t always take people’s individual preferences into account. Someone had asked to only have female staff support them, but this didn’t always happen. Another person told us they’d stopped going to the communal areas because staff always took too long to take them to the toilet, and they were worried about their dignity. Staff also didn’t always treat people with compassion and kindness.
“Due to significant concerns at the home, we have issued two warning notices, so the provider can focus its attention on concerns such as the management of risk to people, including environmental risks and individual risks such as choking, medicines management and the management of the service. If we don’t see rapid and widespread improvements, further action will be taken.”
Inspectors found:
- Risks to people were not managed or reduced to protect them from the risk of harm
- Staff did not always have up to date information to ensure they were aware of people's current risks
- Staff had not always received the training required to keep people safe
- The provider had failed to ensure the environment was safe for people to live in
- Safe recruitment processes were not always followed; therefore, the provider could not be sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people
- Staff did not always work collaboratively with health professionals
- People’s needs and preferences were not always met, and people were not involved in discussions about their own care.