CQC brands specialist care service “totally unacceptable”
A specialist care service has been rated as inadequate Care Quality Commission which described its service provision as “totally unacceptable”.
CQC inspected Summerfield House, ran by NH Care Limited, in August. The residential care home provides personal care for up to five people. At the time of inspection, four people were living at the home.
Summerfield House was rated inadequate overall and for being safe, effective, responsive, caring and well-led
The regulator says residents “have been supported to move out to alternative accommodation to ensure their safety and wellbeing”.
Debbie Ivanova, CQC deputy chief inspector for people with a learning disability and autistic people, said:“Our latest inspection of Summerfield House found a truly unacceptable service with a poor culture where abuse and people being placed at harm had become normal, with no action taken to prevent incidents from happening or reoccurring.
“Records showed incidents of physical, verbal and emotional abuse incidents which had not been dealt with appropriately or followed up. Physical assault between people had become commonplace, made worse by a widespread lack of recognition from staff about the inappropriate and abusive practices going on.
“Care records and the language used by staff to speak to people were derogatory with no thought given to people’s dignity and wellbeing.
“We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted and this was not happening.
“Services must inform CQC and other statutory bodies when they identify safeguarding concerns such as these to ensure people’s safety. This service’s continued failure to refer all instances of abuse and thoroughly investigate concerns has put people at prolonged risk of harm and created a closed culture at the home.
Serious concerns noted by inspectors included:
- People were not protected from abuse. Records showed incidents of physical, verbal and emotional abuse which had not been responded to.
- Records showed staff making threats to cancel people’s activities, call the police when people were anxious and on one occasion use furniture to prevent a person from moving. The staff response and approach to these incidents demonstrated a significant lack of understanding about people’s needs and the safe management of anxiety.
- Staff did not always recognise abuse. For example, inspectors saw a person being hit on the head by another person. This was not recognised as a safeguarding incident and no immediate action was taken to safeguard either person or consider how to prevent this happening again.
- There was no record that any staff discussions had taken place to consider the management of incidents and to discuss inappropriate and abusive staff practices.
- Good infection prevention control practice in relation to COVID-19 were not always followed. Some staff did not wear masks and there was no policy in place for visitors to keep the spread of infection to a minimum.
- Where it was identified that people were at risk of choking, there were insufficient risk assessments in place to prevent this from happening.
Ivanova said: “We continue to monitor the service closely and will take further action if we are not assured the necessary and urgent improvements are made.”