Hi Folkes
Not been so good today, I went to see Grandad and give him his new glasses.
When arriving at the care home I was greeted by yet another new face.
and no home manager was at the home so I inquired polity who the lady was and was informed that she was a Trouble Shooter.
In the past we have had a few issues with the home like lost razors and clothing not being granddads and that there appeared little stimulation for the residents.
These appeared upon our visits to be improved although we were noticing a continual change in staff and Managers leaving the company.
This trouble shooter advised me that she was not over concerned in getting to know family or residents as she would not be at the home long probably 2 months she was here to trouble shoot.
I went to talk with granddad and watched with bemusement all the fast activity around me and the constant requests to staff from the Trouble Shooter and then the facial expressions of the Staff they are not taking this well.
It transpires that the new home manager who only had the job for about fortnight has changed her mind and does not want the job,This has me thinking maybe everything we see on visits might not be what is happening behind closed doors.
I must say every time I have been to the home which is every couple of days I would never say I had witnessed any neglectful actions or dignity issues however.
When I get home my head is racing with the thoughts towards his care and what could be going on at the home, So I searched the Care Quality Commission website.
My god what is going on Multiple failure on Care a report carried out in December 2012.
If this home was so bad why have none of us seen it either family or the social workers.
I now fear for my granddads safety and have contacted his social worker.
I feel guilty but as my mum reminded me I had no choice in his placement into care this was Staffordshire County Council and its Social Workers making the situation impossible for him to be in his own home.
Whilst the CQC are involved in this home I do not feel it appropriate to name the home but the public report is below.
How can I protect him....
Type of service: Care home service without nursing
Date of Publication: December 2012
Overview of the service: This is a residential care home, for up to 23 older people, who may have dementia.
Summary of our findings
for the essential standards of quality and safety
Our current overall judgement
XXXXXXXXXX Residential Rest Home was not meeting one or more
essential standards. Action is needed.
The summary below describes why we carried out this review, what we found and any action required.
Why we carried out this review
We carried out this review as part of our routine schedule of planned reviews.
How we carried out this review
We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 3 October 2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.
What people told us
People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by care staff and their involvement in making choices about their care.
They also told us
about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.
The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an Expert by Experience, who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service, and a practising professional.
Most people living at the home had varying levels of dementia, so not everyone was able to tell us about their life at the home.To help us understand people's experiences we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.
We were able to speak to nine people and one relative. We found that there were no choices in how people spent their day to maintain their interests and lead a full a life as possible.
One person told us, "There is nothing to do here I am getting tired of it now, I
think they are going to find me a new place." Another person told us, ""I love being outside I've worked all my life. What can I do but just sit here. "
We spoke with three members of care staff. They had a good understanding of the types of abuse and their role in keeping people safe. We found that people were treated differently, depending on the member of staff and how well the person was able to communicate.
We saw some interactions between care staff and people were attentive and respectful. Some care staff were more interested in dealing with their next task.
People's dignity was not always respected. One person had personal care provided in the middle of the dining room, in full view of anybody in the room or passing through.
Action was taken to identify a dietary plan for people where there were concerns with their weight loss, so that people were helped to eat sufficient amounts.
People's choices on what they ate and drank, and when, was limited by their ability to express their choices easily.
People told us that they enjoyed the food. One person told us, "You won't get a
better meal anywhere." Another person took a lot of time to tell us about the food and told us, "Food is marvellous. That cook is brilliant. I know when she hasn't cooked."
There was no evidence that the number and skill mix of care staff was kept under review to ensure staffing levels reflected people's needs.
On the day of the inspection, people with limited mobility and independence were left unsupervised in communal areas for significant periods of time. There was no protection of care staff time with people at lunch time.
The general quality and accuracy of care plans and records needed to improve. It was sometimes difficult to check that care provided continued to meet people's needs.
What we found about the standards we reviewed and how well
xxxxxxxxxx Residential Rest Home was meeting them
Outcome 01: People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about
their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run
The provider was not meeting the standard. People's privacy and dignity was not always respected.
People were not fully included in their care.
Outcome 05: Food and drink should meet people's individual dietary needs
The provider was not meeting this standard.
People were not always adequately supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to stay healthy and well.
Outcome 07: People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights
The provider was not meeting this standard.
The provider had not taken reasonable steps to protect people against the risk of abuse.
We judged that this had a moderate impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.
Outcome 13: There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and
meet their health and welfare needs
The provider was not meeting this standard.
The planning of care staff did not ensure that people would always receive the right care, at the right time.
We judged that this had a moderate impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.
Outcome 21: People's personal records, including medical records, should be
accurate and kept safe and confidential
The provider was not meeting this standard. The quality and accuracy of records relating to people's care meant people were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care.
We judged that this had a minor impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.
Actions we have asked the service to take
We have asked the provider to send us a report within 14 days of them receiving this report, setting out the action they will take. We will check to make sure that this action has been taken.
Where we have concerns we have a range of enforcement powers we can use to protect the safety and welfare of people who use this service.
When we propose to take enforcement action, our decision is open to challenge by a registered person through a variety of internal and external appeal processes. We will publish a further report on any action we have taken.
The full report is available at
Not been so good today, I went to see Grandad and give him his new glasses.
When arriving at the care home I was greeted by yet another new face.
and no home manager was at the home so I inquired polity who the lady was and was informed that she was a Trouble Shooter.
In the past we have had a few issues with the home like lost razors and clothing not being granddads and that there appeared little stimulation for the residents.
These appeared upon our visits to be improved although we were noticing a continual change in staff and Managers leaving the company.
This trouble shooter advised me that she was not over concerned in getting to know family or residents as she would not be at the home long probably 2 months she was here to trouble shoot.
I went to talk with granddad and watched with bemusement all the fast activity around me and the constant requests to staff from the Trouble Shooter and then the facial expressions of the Staff they are not taking this well.
It transpires that the new home manager who only had the job for about fortnight has changed her mind and does not want the job,This has me thinking maybe everything we see on visits might not be what is happening behind closed doors.
I must say every time I have been to the home which is every couple of days I would never say I had witnessed any neglectful actions or dignity issues however.
When I get home my head is racing with the thoughts towards his care and what could be going on at the home, So I searched the Care Quality Commission website.
My god what is going on Multiple failure on Care a report carried out in December 2012.
If this home was so bad why have none of us seen it either family or the social workers.
I now fear for my granddads safety and have contacted his social worker.
I feel guilty but as my mum reminded me I had no choice in his placement into care this was Staffordshire County Council and its Social Workers making the situation impossible for him to be in his own home.
Whilst the CQC are involved in this home I do not feel it appropriate to name the home but the public report is below.
How can I protect him....
Type of service: Care home service without nursing
Date of Publication: December 2012
Overview of the service: This is a residential care home, for up to 23 older people, who may have dementia.
Summary of our findings
for the essential standards of quality and safety
Our current overall judgement
XXXXXXXXXX Residential Rest Home was not meeting one or more
essential standards. Action is needed.
The summary below describes why we carried out this review, what we found and any action required.
Why we carried out this review
We carried out this review as part of our routine schedule of planned reviews.
How we carried out this review
We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 3 October 2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.
What people told us
People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by care staff and their involvement in making choices about their care.
They also told us
about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.
The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an Expert by Experience, who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service, and a practising professional.
Most people living at the home had varying levels of dementia, so not everyone was able to tell us about their life at the home.To help us understand people's experiences we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.
We were able to speak to nine people and one relative. We found that there were no choices in how people spent their day to maintain their interests and lead a full a life as possible.
One person told us, "There is nothing to do here I am getting tired of it now, I
think they are going to find me a new place." Another person told us, ""I love being outside I've worked all my life. What can I do but just sit here. "
We spoke with three members of care staff. They had a good understanding of the types of abuse and their role in keeping people safe. We found that people were treated differently, depending on the member of staff and how well the person was able to communicate.
We saw some interactions between care staff and people were attentive and respectful. Some care staff were more interested in dealing with their next task.
People's dignity was not always respected. One person had personal care provided in the middle of the dining room, in full view of anybody in the room or passing through.
Action was taken to identify a dietary plan for people where there were concerns with their weight loss, so that people were helped to eat sufficient amounts.
People's choices on what they ate and drank, and when, was limited by their ability to express their choices easily.
People told us that they enjoyed the food. One person told us, "You won't get a
better meal anywhere." Another person took a lot of time to tell us about the food and told us, "Food is marvellous. That cook is brilliant. I know when she hasn't cooked."
There was no evidence that the number and skill mix of care staff was kept under review to ensure staffing levels reflected people's needs.
On the day of the inspection, people with limited mobility and independence were left unsupervised in communal areas for significant periods of time. There was no protection of care staff time with people at lunch time.
The general quality and accuracy of care plans and records needed to improve. It was sometimes difficult to check that care provided continued to meet people's needs.
What we found about the standards we reviewed and how well
xxxxxxxxxx Residential Rest Home was meeting them
Outcome 01: People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about
their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run
The provider was not meeting the standard. People's privacy and dignity was not always respected.
People were not fully included in their care.
Outcome 05: Food and drink should meet people's individual dietary needs
The provider was not meeting this standard.
People were not always adequately supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to stay healthy and well.
Outcome 07: People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights
The provider was not meeting this standard.
The provider had not taken reasonable steps to protect people against the risk of abuse.
We judged that this had a moderate impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.
Outcome 13: There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and
meet their health and welfare needs
The provider was not meeting this standard.
The planning of care staff did not ensure that people would always receive the right care, at the right time.
We judged that this had a moderate impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.
Outcome 21: People's personal records, including medical records, should be
accurate and kept safe and confidential
The provider was not meeting this standard. The quality and accuracy of records relating to people's care meant people were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care.
We judged that this had a minor impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.
Actions we have asked the service to take
We have asked the provider to send us a report within 14 days of them receiving this report, setting out the action they will take. We will check to make sure that this action has been taken.
Where we have concerns we have a range of enforcement powers we can use to protect the safety and welfare of people who use this service.
When we propose to take enforcement action, our decision is open to challenge by a registered person through a variety of internal and external appeal processes. We will publish a further report on any action we have taken.
The full report is available at
No comments:
Post a Comment
We are here to try to make change please dont send posts which are without viable proof there are some good people out there attempting to do a good job.