‘Unsafe’Leedscare homeplacedin specialmeasures
LEEDS CARE home Donisthorpe Hall has been given six months to improve after national watchdog Care Quality Commission (CQC) rated it as “inadequate” and placed it in “special measures”.
If insufficient improvements have been made in the timeframe, the regulator will then “begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service”.
Overall the home’s rating is extremely poor. The service was found to be not well led, effective or safe. Investigating whether the service was caring and responsive the regulator found these to “require improvement”.
The inspection took place on three visits to the home in August and September, one unannounced and two announced.
Donisthorpe Hall provides residential nursing and dementia care for a maximum of 189 residents. At the time of the inspection it had 119 residents.
At an earlier inspection in March, CQC found Donisthorpe in breach of six regulations which related to safe care and treatment, staffing, person-centred care, quality assurance, consent to care and notification of significant events.
At the recent inspection CQC found the provider was still in breach of five of the same regulations, and contravened an additional regulation because it was not meeting residents’ nutritional needs.
Donisthorpe had made improvement in one area by making better arrangements to support staff.
Service users, as well as family and friends, mostly told inspectors they were satisfied with the care, although concerns about receiving care from a high percentage of staff that did not know them was a recurring theme.
Prior to the inspection CQC had received concerns from other professionals, and some relatives, because they felt the service did not always contact health professionals when it was appropriate, which CQC found was still problematic.
New manager Jane Hughes-Cook had introduced some new management systems; these were very recent so there was insufficient information to show if these were effective.
Although staff had received appropriate training and support to do their job, theydidnotunderstandwhattheymust do to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguardanddidnotactwithinthelaw. One concerned relative, who did not wish to be named, said: “Those who have let these failings go on should be held accountable.” Another resident’s daughter said: “It’s the uncertainty of not knowing what the future holds. We are all left in limbo — it’s deeply disturbing.” Andrew Brown, chair of the trustees, thought the CQC findings were “harsh” and in spite of the home’s best efforts was saddened in not satisfying the regulator’s requirements.
TheembargobyLeedsCityCouncilon admitting new residents has meant the home has dropped to 113 occupied beds putting a financial strain on the home.
Mr Brown said the home was “looking towards a brighter future while walking on a slippery slope” although he was aware that a lot of requirements had to be met within six-months.
He refuted the threat of closure, saying “this is not going to happen. Already the progress we have made, certainly in the last two months, is encouraging as two of CQC’s main concerns have now been addressed.”
Overall the home’s rating is extremely poor’