CQC takes action to protect people at Residential Care Home in East Ham

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has told Residential Care Home, part of Corner House Residential Home Limited, based in Stokes Road, East Ham, to make urgent improvements after rating it as inadequate and placing it in special measures following an inspection in August.

Residential Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a range of specialist needs, including learning and physical disabilities, mental health and sensory needs.
CQC inspected in August after receiving information of concern about the quality of care, safeguarding and management of the service.

Following this latest inspection, the overall rating for the service has dropped from good to inadequate and it is also rated inadequate for being safe and well-led. Inspectors did not look at how effective, caring or responsive the service was and therefore they remain as good. The service will also enter special measures which means that it will be closely monitored to ensure that people are safe.

Debbie Ivanova, CQC's deputy chief inspector for people with a learning disability and autistic people, said:

"When we inspected Residential Care Home, we found multiple issues and failings. Vulnerable people relied on leaders at this service to keep them safe and this simply wasn't happening.

"We found a service that wasn't being well managed. Staff weren't properly trained, people's care plans didn't contain the right information to keep them safe, and there were no audits in place to monitor or drive improvements in these areas. It was also evident that the lack of staffing in the service was having a detrimental effect on the care provided to the people who lived there.

"Relatives in particular told us they were worried about the lives their loved ones were living, with little stimulation to keep them busy. It was also very concerning that relatives were upset leaving family in the home because they worried about their safety, and that staff at times, could be defensive when they tried to raise issues. This is concerning as this is how closed cultures develop. Staff should have been acting as a voice and advocate for vulnerable people using this service but poor leadership meant this wasn't happening.

"We have told the provider that it must now make urgent improvements in order to keep people safe and we will continue to monitor the service closely to ensure that these are made. If we are not satisfied that sufficient improvements have been made, we will not hesitate to take further enforcement action."

Inspectors found the following issues at the service:

• People were not always kept safe from risks to their health and wellbeing and there was not always guidance to show staff how to reduce the risk of harm. For example, one person who had epilepsy and who needed a hoist for transfers did not have assessments in place to manage risks. A relative told inspectors they did not feel their relative's risks had been managed in relation to their health needs.
• There was mixed feedback from relatives about how the service was managed. A relative commented: "I think things could have been better, I used to feel like crying when I left [relative] behind. There was no interaction or stimulation." Another relative spoke positively about the care their loved one received, but said, they felt the environment needed to improve to accommodate all the people who lived in the service.
• Relatives said they had not been asked their views about the service and did not always feel able to approach management. One relative said they didn't feel able to approach the person who they thought ran the service, as were "very defensive".
• Staffing levels were not enough to meet people's needs. For example, there was one person who required two people for transfers and for personal care, who did not always have their needs met at night.
• The service did not always work in partnership with health professionals. One person with challenging behaviours did not have input from a behaviour specialist. This meant the person did not benefit from specialist support to help staff meet their needs.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.