Care home stays in spe­cial mea­sures af­ter in­spec­tion

‘Poor lead­er­ship and man­age­ment within the ser­vice’ in­cluded in Sis­tine Manor re­port

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - - NEWS -

A re­port car­ried out by the Care Qual­ity Com­mis­sion (CQC) in Oc­to­ber judged Sis­tine Manor, in Stoke Green, Stoke Po­ges, to be an ‘in­ad­e­quate’ ser­vice, de­spite in­spec­tors not­ing mi­nor im­prove­ments in the ser­vice.

The care home was placed into spe­cial mea­sures in April 2015 and was warned that if no im­prove­ments were made it would be shut down, fol­low­ing a re­port that la­belled it ‘in­ad­e­quate’ af­ter dis­cov­er­ing a cat­a­logue of main­te­nance is­sues and rais­ing con­cerns about res­i­dents’ dig­nity and about them be­ing ‘de­prived of their lib­erty’.

But fol­low­ing the lat­est re­port, pub­lished on March 29, the home was still judged to be ‘in­ad­e­quate’ in three ar­eas - ‘ef­fec­tive’, ‘car­ing’ and ‘well-led’ – and re­quires im­prove­ment in its safety and re­spon­sive­ness.

Ac­cord­ing to the re­port, Sis­tine Manor did not have a reg­is­tered man­ager, de­spite man­agers hav­ing ‘le­gal re­spon­si­bil­ity for meet­ing the re­quire­ments in the Health and So­cial Care Act 2008 and as­so­ci­ated Reg­u­la­tions about how the ser­vice run’.

The re­port did note, how­ever, that there was a man­ager in post and an ap­pli­ca­tion had been sent to the CQC to reg­is­ter.

The re­port reads: “There were poor qual­ity as­sur­ances in place con­sid­er­ing the on­go­ing breaches since June 2014.

“Although the man­ager and oper­a­tions man­ager had tried to im­prove the ser­vice, there was poor lead­er­ship and man­age­ment within the ser­vice.

“This meant the ser­vice had not im­proved and re­mained in breach of the re­quired reg­u­la­tions un­der reg­is­tra­tion of the Health and So­cial Care Act 2008.

“We found the man­ager and oper­a­tions man­ager is were not ap­pro­pri­ately sup­ported by the provider to en­sure the ser­vice was safe, ef­fec­tive, car­ing, re­spon­sive and well-led.”

In­spec­tors also judged ‘the home was still not tailored to meet the needs of peo­ple with com­plex needs and learn­ing dis­abil­i­ties’, and found there to be a host of is­sues re­lated to the poor train­ing of staff, qual­ity of care and risk as­sess­ments.

The fa­cil­ity caters for 19 adults with se­vere learn­ing dis­abil­i­ties and com­plex needs.

A spokesper­son for Reach, who run the site, said im­prove­ments had been made since the orig­i­nal re­port af­ter they had in­vested more than £100,000, which in­spec­tors had no­ticed by up­grad­ing the ‘safe’ rat­ing.

They added: “As this in­spec­tion took place five months ago, we feel the re­port does not pro­vide a true pic­ture of the home’s cur­rent po­si­tion. How­ever, we are not pur­su­ing our op­tion to ask for an over­all rat­ing re­view, and have de­cided to con­tinue to work hard to im­prove the ser­vices we pro­vide at the home and to main­tain changes to our sys­tems and pro­cesses as all good providers should.

“Three of our other homes have been in­spected by CQC since Oc­to­ber 2015, and all have achieved a good rat­ing. We there­fore look for­ward to the next in­spec­tion visit at Sis­tine, con­fi­dent that a good rat­ing will be awarded.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.