Care home fails in ev­ery inspection cat­e­gory


ONE OF Jewish Care’s best-known homes has failed all five el­e­ments of a Care Qual­ity Com­mis­sion inspection.

Rubens House in Finchley was found to re­quire im­prove­ment in safety and ef­fec­tive­ness and in be­ing wellled, car­ing and re­spon­sive. It is the worst re­port a Jewish Care fa­cil­ity has re­ceived from the care watch­dog.

The CQC re­vis­ited the 46-ca­pac­ity home — opened in 1966 and de­scribed as “bright, warm and friendly” on the char­ity’s web­site — af­ter an inspection last year found im­prove­ment re­quired in the ef­fec­tive­ness and re­spon­sive­ness cat­e­gories.

In the lat­est re­port, the CQC noted that “care and mon­i­tor­ing records were not suf­fi­ciently de­tailed and ac­cu­rate” and that res­i­dents’ health and care records were “in­com­plete and in­con­sis­tent”.

In ad­di­tion, “the ser­vice lacked sys­tems for safe medicines’ ad­min­is­tra­tion.

“Although man­age­ment felt there were suf­fi­cient num­bers of staff de­ployed to meet people’s in­di­vid­ual needs, people, their rel­a­tives and staff told us there were not enough staff avail­able at all times.

“People’s nu­tri­tion and hy­dra­tion needs were not al­ways met,” the re­port added.

Two weeks be­fore the inspection, Jewish Care had moved one of its most ex­pe­ri­enced man­agers to the home af­ter the de­par­ture of the pre­vi­ous in­cum­bent.

In a state­ment, Neil Tay­lor, the char­ity’s direc­tor of care and community ser­vices, said: “We know this home re­quired im­prove­ment and had al­ready put a plan in place to im­ple­ment the changes re­quired.

“The first task was the re­cruit­ment of a suit­ably strong man­ager to lead the home, some­thing we have strug­gled with since our last inspection at Rubens.

“We have now re­cruited an ex­pe­ri­enced man­ager who has achieved good rat­ings at pre­vi­ous Jewish Care homes. She has al­ready been suc­cess­ful in re­cruit­ing ad­di­tional staff into the man­age­ment team and has a com­pre- hen­sive im­prove­ment plan in place.”

Fol­low­ing the pre­vi­ous inspection, “an ex­pe­ri­enced man­ager was re­cruited into the home but she did not com­plete her pro­ba­tion pe­riod. We knew this would be a sig­nif­i­cant set­back to the im­ple­men­ta­tion of our im­prove­ment plans.” Rubens House needed “strong lead­er­ship”.

Char­ity bosses have met with res­i­dents and their fam­i­lies to ex­plain their plans to turn things around. “We had a con­struc­tive meet­ing with them,” Mr Tay­lor re­ported. “Most of the con­cerns rel­a­tives raised were is­sues al­ready fa­mil­iar to us.

“There were also rel­a­tives who were equally keen to ac­knowl­edge the care of the staff, the pos­i­tive at­tributes of the home and the im­pact that, in a short pe­riod of time, the new man­ager has al­ready had.

“This inspection re­port has val­i­dated our plan and brought a sharp fo­cus on the key is­sues we knew needed ad­dress­ing. We are con­fi­dent the new man­ager and her team will ad­dress the is­sues and trans­form the home.”

The CQC told the JC that it had con­sid­ered “en­force­ment ac­tion. The main fac­tor that made us de­cide not to was that the provider had put a new ex­pe­ri­enced man­age­ment team in place and they were al­ready on top of most of the con­cerns.”

Rubens House would be in­spected again in a year — or ear­lier in the event of “in­for­ma­tion of con­cern”.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.