Home Number 90
Tales Of The Un-Inspected
Home Number 90
By Eileen Chubb
( This Report is the Copyright of Eileen Chubb 2011)
This home is owned by the same company as homes, 33, 36, 41, 48, 49, 50, 54, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 82, 84, 87, 88, 89. Please see our Archive section for all reports.
The care regulator, CQC list home 90 as not yet rated, its past history has therefore been erased and there are no inspection reports available at all. However I managed to obtain one report on this home from another source.
When a home has a registration date of June 2010, the public are led to believe this is when the home was first registered under the current owners, this home has been owned by the same company from at least 2005.
When a homes history is wiped information such as that listed below is withheld from the public,
The inspection report dated December 2005, gives me the following information,
There are 38 care standards, the inspectors only judged 7 off those and of those 7 the home failed to meet 5. This is as bad as it gets.
Medication was not checked but there is reference made to a history of medication problems.
Relatives and residents feel their concerns are not taken seriously which explains why people are desperate enough to take concerns to the regulator directly and it is noted that a large number of concerns have been received by the regulator. These concerns related to low staffing levels, standards of care, management and incidents of theft.
It is stated that inspectors looked at staff Rotas to make a judgement that there are sufficient staffing levels but further on in the report it states that the staff Rotas need to reflect the actual numbers of staff working. When people have raised concerns about there not being enough staff and inspectors investigate, I would have expected common sense to prevail.
The home is noted to have very frail and dependent residents with dementia but the home is not registered to care for residents with Dementia so is in breech of its registration. The staffing levels would be set higher for Dementia care, what I see is a situation where abuse and neglect will continue. However that information is not accessible to the public nor is any of the above available.