The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Claremont in Goole, Humberside, inadequate and placed it in special measures following an inspection in September and October.
This inspection was undertaken to find out if the provider had made the required improvements to issues around safe care and treatment, good governance and safe recruitment practices, which were highlighted at the last inspection in June 2021.
Following this recent unannounced inspection, the provider remained in breach of regulations. Also, additional breaches were identified in relation to staffing, person centred care, safeguarding and consent.
The home’s overall rating has now dropped from requires improvement to inadequate. It has also dropped from requires improvement to inadequate for being safe and well-led. Effective, caring and responsive has declined from good to requires improvement.
The service is now in special measures which means it will be kept under review, by CQC and re-inspected to check sufficient improvements have been made.
Claremont is a residential care home. It was providing personal care to four people at the time of the inspection.
Debbie Ivanova, CQC’s director for people with a learning disability and autistic people, said:
“When we inspected Claremont, we were very concerned to find there was a lack of management oversight, and the provider hadn’t addressed our concerns raised at the last inspection. In addition, new issues were found which could put people at serious risk of harm.
“The home had signs of a closed culture, which put people at risk. Also, managers and staff failed to identify poor practice and safeguarding concerns.
“Where action had been taken to address risks, plans weren’t clear or coordinated. Also, staff didn’t always have the appropriate training or knowledge of what action to take. This led to an inconsistent approach for people and increased the risk for people using the service.
“People had limited choice and control over their daily life. For example, people had limited choice over the meals provided, and one staff member told us, "we will cook this for tea and not really ask them." Also, people weren’t supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests. There was no consideration for encouraging people to explore new social, leisure and recreational interests which people living at Claremont deserve.
“Following our inspection, the provider responded to our concerns and started to make improvements. However, more must be made and embedded so that people are receiving a high standard of care.
“The local authority is working with the provider to ensure people are receiving safe care and we will continue to monitor the service closely. If we are not assured people are receiving safe care, we will not hesitate to take action.”
Inspectors found:
- People did not live safely and free from unwarranted restrictions as the service did not assess, monitor and manage risk well. 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
- Staff did not support people to manage their distress, anxiety, feelings and emotional reactions in a personalised way. Decisions around people's care did not always prioritise people's needs and blanket restrictions on people who use the service were not questioned
- Staff had not received training in topics which had been highlighted by the provider as mandatory, such as fire safety, and challenging behaviour. Staff told us they did not always feel safe at work and would have liked training
- Staff used language which demonstrated a poor culture which did not understand people's complex needs and increased people's behaviours
- The provider did not have appropriate systems and processes in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Referrals to the local safeguarding team were not always completed in a timely manner.