A Formby Care Home has been inspected and said to be ‘Overall Inadequate’ by the CQC

A Formby Care Home for Nursing people with Physical Disabilities has been found to be ‘Overall Inadequate’ for being Safe or Effective by The Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The CQC regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during their latest inspection of Freshfield Care Home on College Path in Formby.

A spokesperson for Freshfields Care Home said: “Our number one priority at all times is the health and well-being of all our residents. Since late last year, Freshfields has been under new ownership and it now has a new and highly experienced management team in place. This new team acknowledges the findings of this report and have already taken steps to address them.”

“This includes having a manager in post, enhancing the clinical team and making a number of significant improvements to our operations and processes. These changes are already having a positive impact.”

“We are now working closely with the CQC, along with the local authority and in transparent discussion with the relatives of our residents, to ensure that we provide our residents with the highest possible standard of care and support at all times. We are confident this will be reflected in future inspection results.”

The inspection was 14 November 2022 but findings were only released on 11 January 2023.

The CQC ask five questions about the services as follows:

Q1 - Is the service safe?

A1 - This service was not safe.

Q2 - Is the service effective?

A2 - This service was not effective.

Q3 - Is the service caring?

A3 - This service was not always caring.

Q4 - Is the service responsive?

A4 - This service was not always responsive.

Q5 - Is the service well-led?

A5 - This service was not always well-led.

The Care Quality Commission reported as follows:

Medicines were not managed safely. People did not always receive their prescribed medicines due to lack of stock and medicines were not always administered at the right times. Medicines were not always stored securely and staff did not always ensure medicines were stored within safe temperature ranges.

Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing had not always been assessed and staff did not always have access to information about how to manage people's identified risks and support them safely.

Staff did not always complete records required to monitor people's identified risks; this meant we could not always be certain staff were following guidance regarding people's care and support needs.

There were not always enough staff on duty to support people safely, in addition there was a high usage of agency staff; including nurses. This meant people were not always receiving care that was person-centred. Safe recruitment processes were followed, however, we could be certain that agency staff were being provided with an induction or necessary information prior to working at the service.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice.

Capacity assessments were not always completed or did not always provide a rationale for the outcome of the assessment; this meant we could not be certain consent for care was being obtained in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Authorisations to lawfully deprive people of their liberty had not always been applied for where required.

People's needs had not always been assessed or planned for in line with best practice and staff did not always have access to information about how to support people based on their most current needs.

People did not always receive care that was based on their individual needs or preferences. This was because of the staffing issues identified and the lack of accurate or detailed information available to staff to support people.

We have made a recommendation about the design of the environment. The service design and decoration did not always support people with dementia or cognitive impairments to find their way around or staff unfamiliar with the service, find people's rooms.

Family members spoke positively about the regular staff who worked at the service but told us the standard of care had reduced following the manager's resignation and the high usage of agency staff.

Governance systems in place had not always been effective at identifying issues and driving necessary improvements to the quality and safety of the service.

Following our visit to the service, the manager returned to their role. They, and the provider were responsive to our feedback and took immediate action to address some of the issues we found. The manager provided evidence of some improvements made to people's care plans and risk assessments. People and family members provided positive feedback about the manager.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk