What the CQC found at Carrick

People were supported with prescribed medicines, which were stored appropriately and recorded accurately. Inspectors did note that records explaining some as-needed medicines were too vague.

“People were safely supported with their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored appropriately, and Medicine Administration Records (MAR) had been accurately completed.” from the report

People were supported to go out, including to a day centre, shops and local walks. The provider was also helping people apply for bus passes.

“People were supported to go out on a daily basis.” from the report

Records showed that people attended GP and dental appointments when needed. Hospital passports had also been prepared to share important information if someone needed hospital care.

“Records showed people visited the dentist and GP as needed.” from the report

Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including the use of protective equipment and responses to infection risks. A visitor toilet tap was not working at the time but was repaired afterwards.

“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report

Some staff involved in restraint had not received the required or up-to-date training. On one occasion, a staff member without recent training dealt with an incident alone.

“The failure to ensure staff had the qualifications, competence, skills and experience to enable them to provide care and support safely was a breach of Regulation 12” from the report

Risk assessments contained information that was no longer relevant, and staff did not always have guidance for new risks. Fire alarm tests and other fire safety checks were not completed consistently.

“Weekly fire alarm tests had not been consistently completed. Records showed these had only been done twice in May 2023 and twice in July 2023.” from the report

Capacity assessments had not been reviewed after the provider took over. There was limited evidence that restrictive practices had been properly considered, consented to or justified as being in people's best interests.

“People's care plans included some restrictive practices. There was limited evidence available to demonstrate how people's capacity to consent to each restrictive practice had been fully assessed” from the report

Care plans did not accurately describe people's current needs, goals or skills. This was especially concerning because agency staff were often used and might not know people well.

“Care plans were not an accurate reflection of people's needs. This was particularly important as agency staff were frequently used who would not have a good understanding of people's needs.” from the report

People had some outings, but inspectors saw little activity or active support in the home. Quieter people were especially likely to have little access to pastimes.

“Apart from activities associated with eating and drinking we did not see people engage in any activities with staff while in the service.” from the report

There was no registered manager, several management changes and inconsistent recording of learning after incidents. The systems for checking quality, risks and people's experiences were not effective.

“The failure to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks and improve the quality of the delivery of care and support was a breach of regulation 17” from the report