The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Chase House Limited, a care home in Arlesey, Bedfordshire as inadequate and placed it in special measures to protect the safety and welfare of people living there, following an inspection that finished in January.
Chase House Limited, run by an organisation of the same name, is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care to up to 50 people. It supports older people, people living with dementia, with a physical disability, nursing needs and mental health support needs. There were 49 people living at the home during this inspection.
Following this inspection, Chase House Limited’s overall rating has dropped from good to inadequate, as have the ratings for safe, effective and caring. The rating for well-led has dropped from requires improvement to inadequate. The rating for responsive has also dropped from good to requires improvement.
The service has been placed in special measures, which means CQC will monitor it closely to keep people living there safe whilst improvements are made. CQC has also proposed using its regulatory powers further which Chase House Limited has the right to appeal.
Stuart Dunn, CQC deputy director of operations in the East of England, said:
“When we inspected Chase House Limited, we found poor leadership and a closed culture were behind many of the issues we saw across the service. Leaders didn’t support staff to safeguard people from harm or provide people with the level of care they should be able to expect.
“Staff didn’t always respond when people needed help. One person told us they waited for up to 30 minutes for support and had to bang on the furniture because staff ignored their calls. We had to intervene when we saw a person visibly unwell and bent over in their chair. Staff had left them without assistance before we stepped in to get help, this is unacceptable.
“Staff didn’t always treat people with dignity and respect. Our inspectors overheard a staff member loudly referring to a person’s incontinence as an explosion in front of others. The home also compromised people’s dignity by sharing personal items such as underwear that holds incontinence pads in place between residents.
“We saw that leaders didn’t make sure the home environment was safe in the most basic of ways including working fire exits, making sure windows didn’t open so widely that people could fall out or ensuring taps weren’t able to reach a scalding temperature. It was also concerning that staff didn’t handle residents safely when they were moving them.
“Leaders failed to safeguard people from harm and allowed a closed culture to develop. We saw leaders had removed key details from a safeguarding referral, including a physical struggle between a resident and a staff member, which could give a false impression to outside partners about what happened. This is part of what makes a culture closed. Staff also didn’t always report serious incidents to the local authority, meaning opportunities to learn and protect people in the future had been missed.
“We have told leaders where we expect to see rapid, and continued improvements. They are now in special measures which means CQC will continue to closely monitor the home to keep people safe and ensure rapid and widespread improvements are made. We will return to check on their progress and won’t hesitate to use our regulatory powers further if people aren’t receiving the care they have a right to expect.”
Inspectors found:
- Medicines were not managed safely. Inspectors found expired medicines in people’s rooms.
- Staff did not engage meaningfully with people. Many interactions were task-focused rather than person-centred.
- The service failed to plan for end-of-life care. A few people had no recorded end-of-life care plans, meaning their wishes, cultural needs, and personal preferences were not considered when nearing the end of their lives.
However:
- Staff worked with external health professionals and sought medical advice appropriately when the service had identified changes to people’s health and care needs.
The full report with detailed findings will be published on CQC’s website in the next few days.
The place was run bad. I work there you had all staff more worried about themselves I wouldn’t put my dog in this place the manager was awful women to work for and the staff were so horrible to you gossiping about you. I loved my job there I got told I was talking about one of the women in there but I didn’t. The housekeepers in there are not good at what they do, what you said is true about the home no one look after them properly I never see any of them be washed left ages in chairs while staff was outside having a fag .
I can confirm the home is within the Councils Provider Performance process due to the CQC rating and to track the Service Improvement Plan.
The LA is working in collaboration with the new management and good practise has been evidenced and we continue to visit fortnightly.
Central Bedfordshire Council