The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Ryland Residential Home in Beeston, Nottinghamshire, inadequate, and placed it in special measures to protect people following an inspection in October.
Ryland Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 17 older people.
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about medicines management, staffing levels and the environment.
Following the inspection, the overall rating for the home is inadequate, as well as the areas of safe, effective, responsive, and well-led. Caring is rated requires improvement. The service was previously rated good overall under the previous provider, and for being effective, responsive, caring and well-led. Safe was rated as requires improvement.
The service has been placed in special measures which means it will be kept under close review to make sure people are safe and, if CQC do not propose to cancel the provider's registration, there will be a re-inspection to check for significant improvements.
Greg Reilly, CQC deputy director of operations in the midlands, said:
“When we inspected Ryland Residential Home, we found a home where leaders didn’t have a good understanding of the issues it faced which had resulted in a poor standard of care being provided. We found serious concerns regarding people’s needs not being met that leaders must urgently address to prevent people from being harmed.
“It is unacceptable that people had received injuries from frequent falls due to the environment being unsafe. Unfixed threshold strips in doorways and carpets presented a tripping hazard and when people had falls, staff didn’t complete checks on people or take action to mitigate risk to prevent reoccurrence which left people at risk of continued harm.
“We also saw hazardous items that were accessible to people who may not understand the risks associated with them. An unlocked set of drawers contained disinfectant and button batteries, which could cause serious harm if ingested.
“There was a focus on completing tasks rather than provide person-centred care and we didn’t see any meaningful activities available to people which placed them at risk of social isolation. For example, the care plan of a person who was diagnosed with mental health needs stated they needed staff to sit with them for a chat and encouragement, but they were left in the corner of the dining room without social interaction for prolonged periods other than to be supported with food, drinks and medicines. Two staff members disclosed concerns about this person's welfare and felt they were neglected.
“We will continue to monitor the service closely to ensure the necessary improvements are made and keep people safe during this time. If improvements are not made by the time we next inspect, we will not hesitate to take further enforcement action.”
Inspectors found:
- People's specialised diets were not followed or planned effectively
- Staff had not received relevant training to support them to be competent in their roles
- Care was not person-centred and was task oriented
- Medicines weren’t managed in line with best practice
- The provider, registered manager and staff didn’t understand their roles in safeguarding people
- People were at risk of skin damage as their skin integrity risks weren’t managed safely
- Fire risks weren’t always managed safely.
However:
- People were supported to have contact and visits from relatives
- Some staff showed a caring and compassionate attitude
- Relatives said the registered manager was friendly and approachable.
The report will be published on CQC’s website in the next few days.