Fail­ings found at care home

Macclesfield Express - - MP IN TALKS OVER CARE HOME FUTURE -

AGOV­ERN­MENT in­spec­tor will soon give his views on the coun­cil plan which sets out where homes, busi­nesses and roads will be built.

Stephen Pratt is the plan­ning in­spec­tor ex­am­in­ing Cheshire East’s Lo­cal Plan - which guides de­vel­op­ment un­til 2030 - to check it’s legally sound be­fore sign­ing it off for adop­tion by the coun­cil.

He’s an­nounced he will tell the coun­cil in the next few weeks what he thinks of the plan so far.

It will be the first time the coun­cil hears his views.

Mr Pratt has been analysing the plan at pub­lic hear­ings at Mac­cles­field Town Hall since Septem­ber. But at the start of Oc­to­ber he de­cided to ad­journ the hear­ings to study the un­usu­ally high vol­ume of rep­re­sen­ta­tions about pro­posed de­vel­op­ment sites and con­sider le­gal chal­lenges by de­vel­op­ers.

It had been un­clear whether Mr Pratt would take this op­por­tu­nity to tell the coun­cil what he thinks of the plan so far be­fore re­sum­ing the ex­am­i­na­tion hear­ings.

But a let­ter from the in­spec­tor to Adrian Fisher, head of plan­ning, on Wed­nes­day, Oc­to­ber 22, said: “Hav­ing con­sid­ered the sub­mit­ted plan, the rep­re­sen­ta­tions, sub­mis­sion doc­u­ments and back­ground ev­i­dence, and the hear­ing state­ments, le­gal sub­mis­sions, dis­cus­sions and fur­ther ma­te­rial at the hear­ing ses­sions, I con­sider it would be ap­pro­pri­ate to in­form the Coun­cil of my in­terim views on the le­gal com­pli­ance and sound­ness of the plan.”

Mr Pratt hopes to an­nounce his views be­fore the ex­am­i­na­tion starts again, ex­pected in early De­cem­ber. But he warns the coun­cil may need time to con­sider his points and this could de­lay the plan again.

Eileen Furr is from the Land East of Fence Av­enue (LEFA) group which aims to pro­tect land owned by King’s School at Fence Av­enue which is ear­marked in the plan for 250 homes.

She said: “The de­lay to the plan is dan­ger­ous for Cheshire East as a whole. There is a free for all for de­vel­op­ers with no Lo­cal Plan in place.”

Sites ear­marked for de­vel­op­ment in­clude green belt at Gaw End Lane, Lyme Green for 150 homes and off Con­gle­ton Road for 300 dwellings. More green belt in south-west Mac­cles­field is ear­marked for de­vel­op­ment after 2030.

A Cheshire East spokesman said: “The In­spec­tor has clearly not yet reached any de­fin­i­tive con­clu­sions but will pro­vide his in­terim views in the next few weeks. The Coun­cil looks for­ward to re­ceiv­ing his re­sponse.” A CARE home has been slammed by in­spec­tors for fail­ing to pro­tect el­derly res­i­dents’ safety and wel­fare.

Gen­e­sis Care Home in Mac­cles­field failed to meet all seven stan­dards of qual­ity and safety set out by the Care Qual­ity Com­mis­sion (CQC).

By law, providers must en­sure that they are meet­ing all stan­dards.

Win­nie Care (Mac­cles­field) Ltd, which runs the care home on Peter Street, has been or­dered to take im­me­di­ate ac­tion fol­low­ing the in­spec­tion car­ried out in Septem­ber.

CQC vis­ited in re­sponse to con­cerns about poor safe­guard­ing ar­range­ments for peo­ple who lived in the home and low staffing lev­els. In­spec­tors found that;

While peo­ple liv­ing at the home praised staff, care and treat­ment was not planned and de­liv­ered in a way that en­sured peo­ples safety and wel­fare.

Im­prove­ments re­quired to se­cu­rity, rec­om­mended by po­lice, had not been put in place.

Staffing lev­els were not ad­e­quately main­tained and stan­dards of care were di­rectly af­fected, putting res­i­dents at un­nec­es­sary risk that their care needs would not be met.

Staff were not ad­e­quately sup­ported in their role to de­liver care and treat­ment safely.

The provider did not have ef­fec­tive sys­tems in place to mon­i­tor the qual­ity and pro­vi­sion of care.

The home had not kept up to date records and poli­cies and pro­ce­dures re­quired up­dat­ing.

Safe­guard­ing pro­ce­dures were not ro­bust and some in­ci­dents of con­cern had not been re­ported to CQC as re­quired.

CQC is now con­sid­er­ing the need for fur­ther reg­u­la­tory ac­tion against Win­nie Care (Mac­cles­field) Ltd.

Deb­bie West­head, CQC’s deputy chief in­spec­tor of Adult So­cial Care in the North, said: “It is un­ac­cept­able that this provider has failed to support its staff to de­liver safe, ef­fec­tive and re­spon­sive care and we are deeply con­cerned that the re­quired stan­dards of care have not been met.

“Due to the find­ings of this in­spec­tion we are con­sid­er­ing the need for fur­ther ac­tion against the ser­vice – although we can­not dis­cuss the na­ture of that ac­tion any fur­ther at this stage for le­gal rea­sons.

“We have shared our find­ings with the Lo­cal Au­thor­ity Safe­guard­ing Team and in li­ai­son with the lo­cal au­thor­ity we will con­tinue to mon­i­tor Gen­e­sis Care Home very closely to en­sure that peo­ple re­ceiv­ing care are not at risk of im­me­di­ate harm.

“We have also told Win­nie Care (Mac­cles­field) Ltd very clearly where they must take im­me­di­ate ac­tion to ad­dress the short­falls iden­ti­fied and we will re­port fur­ther on any ac­tion we in­tend to take in due course.”

A spokesman for Gen­e­sis said: “As you are aware CQC un­der­took an unan­nounced in­spec­tion at Gen­e­sis Care Home fol­low­ing an anony­mous com­plaint con­cern­ing staffing lev­els.

“The CQC re­port high­lighted cer­tain stan­dards as hav­ing not been met, th­ese were to do with staffing lev­els, train­ing and in­ad­e­quate pa­per­work at the home.

“Th­ese is­sues have now been rec­ti­fied or are cur­rently be­ing rec­ti­fied.

“What was ev­i­dent and most im­por­tant in the CQC re­port was there are no con­cerns at all with re­spect to the qual­ity of care re­ceived by our res­i­dents.”

●● Gen­e­sis Care Home

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.