A nursing home in Surrey is to close after the Care Quality Commission moved to cancel its registration and published the latest critical report on the facility.
Pinebird Ventures Limited, which owns Fermoyle House Nursing Home in Church Road, Addlestone, had recently informed Surrey County Council that it had decided to close the facility, said the CQC.
“People living at Fermoyle House have been supported to find suitable alternative accommodation”
The regulator said in a statement issued today that the home’s residents had been supported to find suitable alternative accommodation once the provider announced the closure plans last month.
The council had been hosting weekly meetings, attended by the CQC, to discuss the assessment of residents and the identification of suitable alternative accommodation depending on their needs.
The home had 18 residents at the time of CQC’s most recent inspection. Of these, 10 were funded by Surrey County Council, six by other local authorities and two were privately funded. The home had the capacity to look after 32 people living with dementia.
The closure is the culmination of several years of performance issues at the home. In January this year, the CQC inspected Fermoyle House and rated it “inadequate” overall.
The inspection followed one in July 2015 when the home was rated “requires improvement” overall and another in July 2016 when it was rated “inadequate” and placed into the special measures support scheme for failing health and social care providers.
The 2016 inspection has been especially critical, with a range of failings identified, including that medicines were not managed safely and potentially harmful substances were not stored securely.
The inspectors also warned there were not enough nursing staff on each shift to provide effective nursing care, and allegations of abuse were “not appropriately reported”.
In addition, staff had not been supported through training, supervision and appraisal. Meanwhile, residents were “not supported to maintain adequate nutrition or to access treatment when they needed it”.
In addition, the CQC said residents were not always treated with dignity, did not always have their privacy respected during personal care, and there were insufficient activities to keep people “occupied and meaningfully engaged”.
Surrey nursing home to close after ‘inadequate’ CQC rating
At the most recent inspection in January this year, the regulator noted some improvements. For example, the CQC’s report, published in April, found there were additional nursing hours on the rota each day, which meant nurses had more time to provide the care people needed.
The management of medicines had improved and the risk of people coming into contact with potentially harmful substances had been removed.
In addition, residents were better protected against the risk of abuse, because staff had attended safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibilities if they suspected abuse.
Supervision and appraisal had been introduced for staff, which meant they received feedback about their performance and were able to discuss their professional development needs, noted the CQC.
Staff had also attended training in key areas such as safeguarding, dementia and falls prevention and training was available for registered nurses to keep their professional development up to date.
However, the CQC also concluded that changes in management had led to a “lack of clarity for the home’s staff about who they should take their lead from”.
Monthly quality assurance checks were failing to consider key aspects of the service, such as checks on care documentation and recruitment documentation, and there was insufficient evidence of learning from accidents and incidents or of actions taken to minimise risks to people.
In addition, the provider had not established effective systems for people to contribute their views about the service or recorded any feedback they had received informally.
The CQC also noted that residents were not “adequately protected” by the provider’s staff recruitment procedures, and care plans did not record preferences regarding end of life care, which meant wishes were not known to staff.
Meanwhile, people’s privacy was not always protected, because one of the shared bathroom doors was not able to be locked, said the regulator.