England’s health and social care regulator has rated Eastfield, a care home in Maidstone, and Gillingham Road, a home care agency in Gillingham, as inadequate.
England’s health and social care regulator the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has taken action against two care organisations in Kent – one a care home and the other a home care agency. The move is part of what chief executive Julian Hartley told Healthcare Today his ultimate goal is – to protect the people who use these services.
The CQC has rated Eastfield, a care home in Maidstone run by Bureaucom, as inadequate and placed it into special measures to protect people, following an inspection in October.
The inspection was carried out due to concerns regarding the safety and quality of care in the service.
“When we inspected Eastfield, we found a service that wasn’t being well-led. Our experience tells us when a service isn’t well-led, it’s less likely they’re able to meet people’s needs in the other areas we inspect, which is what we found here,” said Serena Coleman, CQC deputy director of operations in Kent and Sussex.
“Leaders did not have a grasp on the issues at the service, and we found widespread shortfalls in almost all of the areas we looked at. Some of the issues they weren’t managing well were the basics, essential to the good running of any home. Such as ensuring there were enough staff on duty to keep people safe, and ensuring that people’s health risks were well managed,” she continued.
No risk assessment
The regulator has taken a similar position on Gillingham Road, a home care agency and supported living service run by Eunistar Health Consultant in Gillingham, which provides personal care to older people, as well as autistic people or people with a learning disability.
During the inspection, CQC found eight breaches of regulations in relation to dignity and respect, person-centred care, people’s capacity to consent, safeguarding, safe care and treatment, staffing, recruitment processes and how the service was being managed.
“When we inspected Gillingham Road, it was concerning to find a service where care wasn’t always personalised to meet people’s needs and wishes, which meant they didn’t have any independence, or choice and control of their lives. This was particularly poor for autistic people and people with a learning disability, which was unacceptable,” said Coleman.
“Risks associated with people’s physical health care weren’t managed in a safe way. For example, where people had catheters fitted, there was no risk assessment to help staff identify issues or know when to seek further support, such as if the person had an infection,” she continued.
