A STALYBRIDGE nursing home has been told it remains in special measures by a watchdog as it is breaching eight legal regulations, despite improvements.
Parkhill, on Huddersfield Road, was placed in that bracket in November following a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection.
Now after a follow-up visit over February and March, they remain in place even though operators Belmont Parkhill Limited have taken action to address some of its faults.
And in summing up, the organisation found: “At the time of our assessment, the provider was previously in breach of several legal regulations.
“At this assessment, we found improvements in relation to the recruitment of staff and management of safeguarding matters and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.
“However, we found there were continued breaches of eight legal regulations relating to the provision of person-centred care, ensuring people were treated with dignity and respect, the need for consent, the management of the environment, the management of people’s nutritional needs, the safe management of people’s medicines, the management of risk, oversight and governance.”
Parkhill was rated as inadequate overall and in three of five different focus areas.
In the safe category, the CQC warded the facility just 34 points out of a possible 100 and noted several concerns.
It stated: “The provider did not have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not listen to concerns about safety and did not investigate or report safety events.
“Families did not always feel enough action was taken to reduce the risk when people transitioned between care services, for example, by promoting good diet and fluids to reduce the risk of infections.
“They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.
“Feedback from people and families indicated there had been improvements in the safety of the service, however, some people and families still had concerns around issues such as staffing levels.
“We observed there was not always enough staff available within the home to provide the care people required. People and families continued to raise concerns about staffing levels, particularly at night-time.
“There was an ongoing programme of work to address areas of shortfall and improve the comfort and safety of the environment.
“However, there were still several areas of the environment which needed to be addressed.
“Whilst people’s bedrooms and communal areas had been repainted, the windows had not been replaced in these rooms and some rooms were very cool and people raised concerns about being cold.
“Domestic staff were in place and worked hard to ensure the home was clean and tidy. However, there was not always sufficient staff to cover all areas of cleaning, including the laundry. Some areas of the home had unpleasant odours, although this had improved since we last visited the home.”
Similar faults were found as Parkhill was ranked inadequate in the categories of effective (38 out of 100) – with the CQC adding: “The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people’s nutritional needs were supported and the systems and process for governance.”
It only scored 36 out of 100 in the well-led section, with the conclusion: “The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the systems oversight and governance.”
Despite its failings, the CQC did not several improvements and that the operator is looking to address other shortcomings.
And those using Parkhill also felt things had taken a turn for the better.
The latest report adds: “People felt the home was improving. One relative told us, ‘There have been visible improvements in maintenance and upkeep.’
“There was an ongoing programme of redecorating but how people’s rooms were prioritised was not clear. For example, several people’s bedrooms were drafty, windows need replacing and people complained about being cold in their rooms.
“One person cared for in bed had a bedroom which was very small, lacked space for visitors to sit and chat and had ripped and damaged walls and flooring.
“We were assured by the provider this had been temporary and after our visit that this person had been supported to move to a different bedroom which had been redecorated.
“People spoke positively about the staff team with one family member telling us, ‘I’ve never seen anything but kindness from staff.’
“People and families consistently raised concerns about staffing, with one relative saying, ‘They never have enough staff, they are run off their feet.’”