The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Gladstone House in Scarborough, inadequate and placed it in special measures following an inspection in October.
This unannounced inspection was partly carried out due to concerns received about the quality of care being provided to people, as well as infection prevention and control issues.
Gladstone House is a care home that provides accommodation and nursing care to people who may be living with mental health issues or a learning disability.
Following this inspection, the care home’s overall rating has dropped from good to inadequate. Ratings for how well-led, safe, effective, caring, and responsive to people’s needs, have also dropped from good to inadequate.
The service is now in special measures which means it will be kept under review, by CQC and re-inspected to check on the progress of improvements.
Debbie Ivanova, CQC’s director for people with a learning disability and autistic people, said:
“When we visited Gladstone House, we were disappointed to find care standards had deteriorated since our last inspection, and leaders failed to have a grasp of the issues facing the service. However, during our inspection, it was encouraging that leaders took immediate action and started to address some of the issues we identified.
“We found people didn’t always receive good quality care, support or treatment as staff weren’t adequately trained to meet people’s needs. They weren’t supported to have maximum choice, control and independence of their own lives, and weren’t encouraged to achieve their aspirations and goals.
“We found poor processes were putting people at significant risk of harm. Medicines weren’t managed safely, including incorrectly recording people’s allergies. Also, care plans weren’t always in place to support people’s mental health, emotional well-being, finances, or to maintain a balanced diet. In addition, the environment was poorly maintained.
“As the service has been rated inadequate and placed in special measures, we will continue to monitor it closely to ensure people are safe. If we are not assured people are receiving safe care, we will not hesitate to take further action.”
Inspectors found:
- Staff had been recruited without following safe recruitment procedures, they were also not provided with the relevant training to meet people’s needs. Staff were not trained in mental health or learning disabilities, long-term conditions, diabetes or stoma care
- Concerns had not been raised to safeguard people from potential harm or abuse. This included poor medicines management, insufficient care plans and inadequate risk assessments
- The environment and equipment did not meet the needs of people using the service and therefore, people’s dignity and confidentiality were not always respected. Personal discussions took place openly and personal information was displayed in communal areas
- The provider had a complaints policy in place. However, there were no records of any previous complaints that people, and relatives told us they had raised with the manager
- People were not supported to make their own choices around their individual preferences, for example, all the residents had to eat in the dining room. Also, people were not involved in decisions about their care planning. However, choice was offered to people on how they would like to spend their time.