What the CQC found at Delrose

The provider had a robust recruitment process and kept records needed to support safer recruitment decisions.

“There was a robust recruitment process which included retention of the necessary records to show evidence of safe recruitment.” from the report

The provider had a detailed improvement plan and was sharing regular updates about its progress with inspectors.

“The provider was working to a thorough, credible improvement plan at the time of inspection.” from the report

The provider cooperated with the safeguarding enquiry and accepted training and advice from local authority and NHS professionals.

“The provider had cooperated openly with the large scale safeguarding enquiry established by local authority and NHS professionals.” from the report

The provider had introduced a staff skills audit, quality workshops and better supervision and support for night staff.

“The provider had created a learning culture at the service which improved the care people received.” from the report

Safeguarding incidents were not always reported, and risk assessments were not always maintained or followed. Inspectors found increased risk that people could be harmed.

“People were not always safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report

Some people identified as at risk of choking did not receive the right support when eating and drinking.

“For example, people identified as at risk of choking did not receive appropriate support to eat and drink.” from the report

People did not always receive medicines at the right time, including medicines that care plans said should be taken with food. Some staff were unsure why certain medicines were time critical.

“People did not always receive their medicines at the right time, particularly where care plans stated medicines should be taken with food.” from the report

The home did not always have enough suitably skilled staff. Staff and managers from other locations were used, but inspectors said this was not sustainable and affected continuity.

“The provider did not always ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report

Some staff treated people with care and offered choices, but others showed little engagement or did not respond quickly when people's dignity was affected.

“People's privacy, dignity and independence were not always respected and promoted.” from the report

Cleaning rotas were not consistently followed, and a deep clean did not initially meet the required standard. Some items needed replacement and storage obstructed a fire escape route.

“Staff did not always follow cleaning rotas which meant cleaning was not done regularly or effectively.” from the report