‘We are very concerned,’ say inspectors
A Wearside care home remains in special measures after it was again rated inadequate by watchdogs.
Inspectors from the Care Quality Commision (CQC) visited Donwell House, in Washington, in October to follow up on a previous inspection in March, when it was rated inadequate because of several breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. .
The home provides care for up to 63 people some, of whom have nursing needs and/or may be living with dementia.
Debbie Westhead, deputy chief inspector of Adult Social Care in the North, said: “People are entitled to services which provide safe, caring and high-quality care.
“We found that the care provided at Donwell House fell a long way short of what we expect services to provide.
“It is unacceptable that people using these services did not have even their most basic rights to live in a safe environment taken care of. Fire safety was a real concern for us, including inadequate fire detection systems and a very out-of-date evacuation register.
“We had previously told Donwell House that they must take action to fix these problems, so it was disappointing to see that none had been taken.
“We were very concerned about the lack of risk assessments at the service. For example, people with swallowing difficulties had no risk assessments completed in relation to choking, potentially endangering safety.
“We are working with local partners including Sunderland City Council to ensure the safety of people using this service.”
The latest CQC report included:
A registered manager was not registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. A manager was in post, but they had only started the role on October 3, 2016.
Routine checks on fire and premises safety had not been completed in a regular and timely manner.
Care records contained conflicting information, there were no specific and detailed strategies for staff to follow in relation to how to support people or how people wanted to be supported and care records had not been updated to reflect changes in people’s needs.
There was no evidence of mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions or specific care plans in relation to people whose GP had stated they could have medicines administered covertly.
A CQC spokesman said: “Any regulatory decision that CQC takes is open to challenge by a registered person through a variety of internal and external appeal processes.”