Unpleasant odour needs sorting at a Doddington Care Home, say inspectors
- Credit: Archant
A home that provides care for adults needs to sort an “unpleasant odour” in the corridors and some of the bedrooms, according to a report.
Inspectors from the Care Quality Commission said the service at Askham Place in Doddington was safe and caring but it needed improving as it was not always effective, responsive or well led.
They added that despite the home looking clean there was an unexplained smell which meant the venue was “not as pleasant a place to visit, live or work in as it should have been.”
Outings also came under fire in the report which said the last trip outside was six months ago for Christmas shopping and before that a canal boat trip a year ago.
The home, however, was praised by some residents who said staff were like part of the family .
You may also want to watch:
A two day unannounced inspection was carried out at the centre for 16 adults, following its last review two years ago when improvements were made to the management of medicines.
The report says that residents and their relatives were not always involved in the planning of their own care and that care plans did not contain up to date information to help staff give them personal support.
- 1 Fire destroys family bungalow in the Fens
- 2 Cyclist stabbed in broad daylight attack
- 3 Daughters remember artist father who would ‘always be there’
- 4 Shocks all round as police pull over 'white van man'
- 5 Care home ‘requires improvement’ in five key areas
- 6 Man found dead in March
- 7 WATCH: Flying Scotsman steams through Cambridgeshire Fens
- 8 Farm donates pumpkins and money to hospitals ‘close to our hearts’
- 9 Yellow weather warning issued for Cambridgeshire
- 10 HGV driver courses set up to help meet critical shortages
It also found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and noted that not all staff were aware of their responsibility to protect the rights of people who lacked the mental capacity to make their own decisions.
In addition a social care professional said they had “serous concerns” that senior staff were unclear about the law in this area and only nine out of 36 staff had received training on it.
Social care professionals also noted that “people had not always received the level of treatment that the home had been commissioned to provide. In one instance a person had not received the therapy they required for nearly three weeks, although the manager told us this had been a one-off.”
Therapy staff were excellent, the report noted, and some people who had been admitted for rehabilitation had done well and were able to return home.
However, positive comments by residents are included in the report. One said staff there are: “very friendly and kind and almost like part of the family.”
One person who had lived at the home for a long time said: “It think this place has got better over the years. I suspect the management have got a lot better at what they do.”