Our response to the CQC report
CQC said – Staff were not always visible in communal areas until lunchtime. This meant that people were left unsupervised and we noted some people became distressed.
Our Response – Staff always support residents with their needs at all times where required including mealtimes. All areas are staffed in accordance with a recognised dependency calculation and the ration of staff is higher than that in many comparable settings. There were no Residents who had been assessed to be at high risk and people were gathered together as part of usual social engagement with required welfare checks being completed and documented. Some of the Residents may have been confused at this time but we do not accept that individuals were distressed.
CQC said – Not everyone got the support they needed at lunch time to ensure they ate well. Staff did not sit with them or encourage them to eat their meals.
Our Response – The Home considers the mealtime experience to be an important part of every day and a great deal of effort and enthusiasm is invested. Catering and Hospitality staff are involved in supporting at mealtimes and senior staff are also present to give additional assistance. Some Residents prefer to enjoy meals in their own bedroom and staff support this. Multiple choices are always available. All of our Residents have individual needs and as such we maintain that observation without full context may have been misleading.
CQC said – Activity staff were stretched to cover such a large home and give people individual time and attention.
Our Response – Our Activity Team is fully staffed and work across 7 days to provide a variety of options and choices. On one of the inspection days, one of the activity staff member was on annual leave. There is a timetable that particularly allocates sessions for individual sessions. Feedback from Residents and family members within the CQC report includes statements such as “they [activity staff] always have time to sit and chat”. The report also states “daily activities were provided flexibly and activity staff showed a good understanding of peoples backgrounds, preferences and routines”.
CQC said – Some staff were new to post so still developing their skills and competencies and staff teams were not all working effectively.
Our Response - This statement directly contradicts comments included elsewhere in the report, wherein it is stated that the inspection was confident that the right teams are in place and where reference is made to staff functioning safely with suitable training, induction and support. Staff are noted to have spoken about their passion for the job and making a difference. A comment of particular note reads that “with support and patience from the staff they [Resident] had settled in and were now confident in the staff and the home situation.
We strongly feel that the inspection was harsh and not proportionate. We note that the inspector reviewed 2 people’s records out of 52 residents in the home at the time. We had care plans and risk assessments in place for some of the people on blood thinning medication. No incidents of residents glucose being out of range was noted during the inspection. We have however reviewed and put more robust processes to ensure records of evidence is in place
CQC said – A person was finding it hard to settle in and the Service had not sought intensive support for them.
Our Response – As a Service we are acutely aware of the difficulties that can be associated with a change of environment for some of our Residents, in particular those who are living with Dementia or similar conditions. In the majority of cases, many of the initial issues are seen to reduce rapidly as the environment becomes more familiar for the individual. Each Person is individually assessed on arrival and a support plan is agreed with our Primary Care and Community colleagues. The need for any access to intensive support must be agreed by external specialists and whilst the home can and does make such requests, it does not always lie within the scope of the Service to facilitate such interventions.
CQC said – People were walking around with limited information to orientate them or items that they could interact with thus creating a sterile environment.
Our Response – The Home has extensive signage throughout the environment that uses both words and pictures to aid orientation. Elsewhere in the report it is stated that People were supported appropriately and that different colours are used to help People identify their floors. Each Resident has an individual and personalised name plate outside their own bedroom door. We do welcome the feedback in relation to increasing access to tactile and sensory items and plans to address this are in progress.
The home has a robust governance process which identifies improvements required. This was highlighted in home staff meeting minutes and not by the inspector on the day of the visit. We strongly feel that this has been wrongly misrepresented as it shows good governance within the home. There is always a drive to improve documentation to ensure safe delivery of care.
Residential
