A care home has been given the lowest rating of inadequate and put into special measures following an investigation after a resident died.
The most recent inspection into Le Moors Residential Home in Clayton-le-Moors was carried out partly as a result of whistleblowing concerns the Care Quality Commission received regarding the care people were receiving.
During an earlier visit in February, inspectors from the CQC reviewed the level of care given to those living at Le Moors following the death of a resident, after concerns were raised over choking risks and dietary requirements – potential issues which had arisen from the fatality.
Inspectors found that at the time of the incident residents were not always receiving safe care and treatment, but it had made improvements since the death and the home was given a ‘requires improvement’ rating.
In the February report, inspectors had noted: “The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident, following which a person who lived at the service died. This incident is separately being reviewed.”
Le Moors was rated as requiring improvement in all five areas of assessment in February – safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness and management.
But following the most recent unannounced inspection, in May, inspectors found not enough improvement had been made and the provider was still in breach of regulations.
The overall rating for the Whalley Road care home was therefore ‘inadequate’ and the service was placed into special measures.
The CQC report stated: “This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvements.”
Le Moors is a residential home for up to eight adults, with support aimed primarily at younger adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.
The report, published last week, stated: “Staff had not been safely recruited. Infection control measures still needed to be improved. The visitor toilet was not fit for purpose.
“The provider had not ensured risk assessments were in place which considered the increased vulnerability of people living in the home to Covid-19.
“There was no evidence staff had taken any action to assess and mitigate the risks of people being unable to understand the government guidance they should self-isolate in their bedroom following admission to the home or to maintain social distancing.
“The provider had not ensured there were regular checks of the environment. The manager had not completed required fire safety checks or documented the support each individual living in the home would require to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.
“Care records lacked detail about people’s interests, wishes and preferences. There was no evidence of goal planning with people who lived in the home to support them to live independent and fulfilling lives. We have made a recommendation about this.
“The provider had not always ensured people’s ability to consent to their care.
“People in the home were undergoing regular testing in relation to coronavirus but there had been no assessments as to whether this was in their best interests when they did not have the capacity to consent.
“The provider did not have effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service.”
The information shared with CQC about the fatal incident indicated potential concerns about the management of people’s risk of choking as well as staffing levels, staff training and management arrangements at the service.
This inspection covered all these areas but no further information was provided on the fatality.
A spokesperson for Regal Care Trading Limited said: “We are working very closely with our lead CQC inspector. “CQC have conducted a targeted inspection on May 18 and 20. “The following findings are reflected in their published report: People appeared happy with the staff who supported them.
Relatives had no concerns about the safety of their family members in the home and told us staff were kind and caring.
Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse.
Medicines were safely managed.
People appeared to enjoy the food staff cooked for them.
Some improvements had been made to the range of activities available to people within the home.
Some easy to read information was available to people living in the home, but this needed to be further developed to support people to make their own decisions and choices.
The provider had a system to receive and investigate complaints.”