Care home in Melton rated inadequate over safety and treatment
A care home in Melton Mowbray has been rated inadequate and placed in special measures.Inspectors from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) found stained mattresses, rusty showers and unpleasant smells when they visited The Amwell, in Asfordby Road.In a report published on Friday, the watchdog also said staff were unable to show residents were being kept hydrated and were not carrying out personal care often enough to ensure their good hygiene.The home has apologised for the standard of care offered to its 88 residents at the time of the inspection, in December, and said it was taking action to address the issues raised.
The CQC said it had implemented special measures to protect residents and would closely monitor the home as it tries to improve.
The CQC said the home was rated inadequate for its safety, effectiveness, and leadership.Inspectors said they found a "closed culture" among senior leaders who did not understand the challenges the home faces.Residents and the family were uncomfortable about speaking out about problems, the CQC added.The report said the lack of care led to family members complaining their relatives were left smelling "strongly unpleasant".It also said there was a case where a resident fell ill during a medical emergency but staff had not sought medical attention.The CQC added the home did not make sure that people's care and treatment was effective because they did not discuss their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff could not understand people's needs because their care plans had several contradictions, the CQC added.Employees also spoke negatively about residents and families within their earshot.
'Left in distress'
Craig Howarth, CQC's deputy director of operations in the Midlands, said: "Leaders didn't make sure they employed enough staff with the right knowledge and skills. "One relative told us staff leave residents in the lounge without supervision, leading to arguments and disagreements. "Another relative told us they heard people regularly cry out for help from their rooms. "This is unacceptable that people were being left in distress."The home managed medicines unsafely, putting people at risk of harm," Mr Howarth added."Some prescription items were out of date, and room and fridge temperatures exceeded the recommended range. "Staff didn't update medicine charts, making it unclear if people received their medication putting their health at serious risk."We have told leaders where they urgently need to make rapid and widespread improvements and hope to see these plans deliver better experiences for people."
A spokesperson for the home said the health and wellbeing of residents was its "absolute priority" and that it took the CQC report extremely seriously."We would like to reassure our residents and their families that the findings of this inspection, which took place last year, are in no way reflective of the current quality of care being delivered at the home today," they said.The home said a new leadership team was in place and there was an action plan to improve staff training."We sincerely apologise that at the time of the inspection we fell short of the high standards we set for ourselves," the spokesperson added."However, we look forward to welcoming the CQC back into our home and we are confident that they will reaffirm the positive steps that have been made."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Warning over 'two tier' support for ADHD sufferers amid 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers
NHS waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis and support have led to a 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers, a report has said. The ADHD Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report calling for the system of diagnosing and managing the neurological condition to be overhauled. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is characterised by patterns of restlessness, impulsivity and difficulty concentrating on one thing, with assessment and treatment typically provided by highly specialised doctors. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long', with demand on services 'very likely' to continue to rise. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'We need to get this right – to make sure people get early diagnosis and support.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby
Every baby born in the UK will have their DNA mapped by the NHS as part of efforts to assess their future risk of hundreds of diseases. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said every newborn would undergo whole genome sequencing within a decade. Streeting has said the move was part of a ten-year health plan, due to be published early next month, which will allow babies to 'leapfrog' major killers. 'The revolution in medical science means that we can transform the NHS over the coming decade, from a service which diagnoses and treats ill-health, to one that predicts and prevents it,' Streeting told The Telegraph. 'Genomics presents us with the opportunity to leapfrog disease, so we're in front of it rather than reacting to it.
