Small care home in Ashfield 'learns lessons' after damning criticism by watchdog

The residential home, known by its address of 41 West Hill and run by Cima Care Consortium Ltd, provides personal care for up to five younger adults with a learning disability and autistic people.

After being given 20 hours’ notice of a CQC inspection in October, the home was handed an overall rating of ‘Inadequate’ and placed in special measures.

This means it will be kept under review and “re-inspected within six months to check for significant improvements”. Unless things get better, the CQC could take enforcement action to close 41 West Hill down.

The home was also rated ‘Inadequate’ in two of three individual categories, covering how safe and well-led it is. In the other category, probing whether or not it is caring, the home was rated ‘Requires Improvement’.

The main thrust of the inspectors’ criticism was that care at the home was “not person-centred”. It did not put the needs of the residents first, which “impacted on their dignity, privacy and human rights”.

However, Cima insists plans have already been put in place to change the culture at 41 West Hill.

Mandy Purewal, a director of the company, told the Chad: “We have taken the findings of the CQC report very seriously. The wellbeing, health and safety of our residents is our priority.

"We have reflected and learned valuable lessons from the feedback provided by the CQC, and have worked collaboratively with all stakeholders to compile and implement a robust quality improvement plan.

"We have already begun to see the improvement in standards. We are confident that our commitment to placing the residents at the centre of everything we do will drive the re-design, which will be recognised by the CQC when the re-inspection is carried out.”

Among the most damning findings of the inspectors was that “staff and management did not always understand how to protect residents from poor care and the risk of abuse”.

There was “a lack of visible leadership and management”, and “staff did not have the right skills and knowledge”.

The report added: “Residents were not always supported to live safely and free from unwarranted restrictions, and their rights were not always respected.”