Newcastle's Bowland Lodge care home rated 'inadequate'

Bowland Lodge provides personal care for up to 36 people

A care home with a history of "failing to provide good standards of safety" has been rated inadequate.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) placed Bowland Lodge, in Newcastle, in special measures in April.

Its latest report, following an unannounced inspection in September, said urgent improvements must be made.

CQC regional deputy director of operations Linda Hirst said it was "disappointing" previously highlighted issues had not been addressed.

Inspectors had "serious concerns" about the safety of the environment and the lack of effective systems to ensure safety and good care, she said.

"Records were still not always clear and up-to-date and didn't fully show that the provider had taken steps to mitigate any potential risks to people," she added.

The CQC said improvements were needed to cleanliness and maintenance, fire safety, infection control and food hygiene.

It said, following the inspection, the registered manager told the CQC they had taken further action to address concerns.

Ms Hirst acknowledged there had also been some improvements in meeting residents' social needs.

'Rapid improvement' expected

The home provides personal care for up to 36 people with a variety of needs, including mental health issues and dementia.

At the time of the inspection, there were 26 people using the service - 25 of whom were receiving personal care.

The home has been rated inadequate overall, and separately for how safe and well-led it is.

Its responsiveness to people's needs has improved from inadequate to 'requires improvement'.

The categories covering whether the service is effective and caring were again rated as 'requires improvement'.

Ms Hirst said the home's operator and manager had "developed an action plan to address the issues identified".

The CQC said it "expects to see rapid and widespread improvement, and will not hesitate to take further enforcement action".

Points identified by inspectors included:

• Robust monitoring systems to improve the quality and safety of the service were not implemented

• Eating and drinking risks were not always been fully assessed

• Records did not always give evidence safe recruitment procedures were followed

• The system to manage medicines was not always effective

• Action had been taken to improve care planning but further improvement was needed to ensure plans and risk assessments were up-to-date

• Inspectors observed some positive interactions between residents and staff but were not assured they received a high quality, compassionate and caring service

• There were enough staff, and a support and training system was in place

• Improvements had been made to meet social needs