Marland Court Care Home in special measures

Marland Court Care Home in Rochdale has been placed in special measures following an ‘inadequate’ Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating.

The home, which is a 24-bedroom home that cares for people over 65, was deemed inadequate after the unannounced inspection in April found eight breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

There were 16 people using the service, provided by Elizabeth House (Oldham) Limited at the time of the inspection.

The home had not had a manager registered with the commission in post since July 2016. A new manager had recently been appointed, but at the time of the inspection, had not started the process of registering with the CQC.

During the inspection, CQC officials found eight breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, including compromised dignity and privacy of service users, unsafe storage and disposal of medicines, not enough staff on duty, unclean and unsafe premises posing a risk to health and safety, no records confirming inspection of the electrical installation, no gas safety check or fire risk assessment by the due dates.

The provider had failed to ensure the premises were kept clean and safe, placing the health and safety of people who lived, worked and visited the home “at risk of harm”. There were unguarded hot radiators and pipes and some windows were without restrictors, “posing a serious risk of harm to people who used the service”.

The periodic gas safety check and fire risk assessment had not been undertaken by their due date and there were no records in place to confirm if the periodic inspection of the electrical installation had been undertaken.

Following the inspection, action had been taken to address most of the safety issues: the CQC were sent confirmation that the gas and electricity facilities had been serviced and the fire risk assessment had been undertaken. They will check if the outstanding safety issues have been addressed, during the next inspection.

There were “not enough staff” on duty at all times, to “ensure that people were adequately supervised and cared for safely” and medicines were not “managed safely”.

People were at risk of not getting their medicines in accordance with their needs and wishes and the storage and disposal of medicines was not “as safe as it should have been”.

The privacy and dignity of people who used the service was “compromised” because there were no locks on toilet and bathroom doors and the bedroom of one person who was in hospital was “being used by another person”.

Since the inspection, inspectors have been told that locks have been fitted to the toilet and bathroom doors; this will be checked on the next inspection.

Suitable and sufficient activities and community involvement were “not provided” to help promote people’s well-being and there was “no effective system” in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

The report noted some of the systems that were in place “did not identify the issues of concern found on this inspection.”

A readily accessible complaints procedure was in place but was found to be lacking necessary CQC contact details.

Despite the failings, a number of good points were highlighted.

Inspectors recognised that although staff received the essential training necessary to carry out their job effectively and care for people safely, they recommended the induction programme be improved.

Staff were praised by the inspectors, as service users felt they were ‘kind, helpful and caring’. They also knew what to do if an allegation of abuse was made or suspected abuse had occurred and suitable arrangements were in place.

The report noted the manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s rights were protected as the manager knew the procedures to follow if people were to be deprived of their liberty.

Residents told inspectors staff were kind, helpful and caring; inspectors saw people looked well cared for and there was enough equipment available to ensure people's safety, comfort and independence were protected.

People's care records contained enough information to guide staff on the care and support required. The records showed that risks to people's health and well-being had been identified and plans were in place to help reduce or eliminate the risk.

Residents told inspectors they enjoyed their meals and were able to choose what they wanted. A suitable choice of nutritious food and drink were readily available and their health care needs were met. Food stocks were good.

Marland Court was previously inspected in June 2015 when it was also rated ‘inadequate’.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/96584/marland-court-care-home-inadequate-says-care-quality-commission