Buckreddan Care Centre given 'weak' Care Inspectorate report

A "smell of urine" from within parts of the home were amongst a number of concerns raised by the Care Inspectorate (CI) following an announced visit to Buckreddan Care Centre in August of this year.

Five different key areas were assessed at the Irvine Road care centre, returning four ratings of weak - the second lowest rating on the CI's scale - and one further rating of adequate.

The only area not rated as weak referred to the staff at the home where the CI report states that "stengths only just outweighed weaknesses".

It added: “People we spoke with commented positively about staff. They said that staff were friendly and worked hard.”

However it was added that the compliance levels for completion of some training were low, including core training.

Though out with this, the report became more damning with four weak ratings referring to areas were some strengths were identified by "these were compromised by significant weaknesses".

The setting at the home was considered a significant issue with a number of issues highlighted by the CI.

READ MORE: Harper House judged 'very good' in Care Inspectorate report

Their report explained: "We saw that there was a need for redecoration and replacement of some carpets in the home. There was a smell of urine in the home.

"Comments from people we spoke to during the inspection echoed our concerns about the quality of the environment.

"Some people also commented that the décor of their bedrooms could be improved. The lighting in the corridors of the Eglington unit was poor and cast shadows which could pose a trip hazard for people with poor vision or living with dementia.

"There was an environmental plan in place. However, there was a significant number of outstanding actions noted.

"There was minimal PPE available at point of need in the Eglington unit. Some of the containers to store PPE needed cleaned.

"There were a number of clinical bins and general waste bins without lids, and some were overflowing."

While they noted particular concerns that systems in place to record health and safety checks were also not being carried out effectively and that not all aspects of the area was covered.

This included poor compliance with fire checks and the storage of substances hazardous to health.

While significant concerns were raised about how well Buckreddan Care Centre supports people's well being.

READ MORE: Carewatch: Ayrshire care service rated 'weak' by Care Inspectorate

It was noted that staff had been promoting sleep and supporting people's choices about when they wanted to get up.

The CI added that people were generally well presented and enjoyed going to the in-house hairdresser which helped to maintain people's dignity.

However, these positive aspects were outweighed by a number of concerns.

The report said: "We noted that staff did not always engage well with people and at times people were being rushed. Staff approach was task driven and not as person centred as it could be."

"Staff would benefit from the 'Promoting Excellence programme for dementia learning and development.' This would help staff develop the skills and knowledge to deliver responsive, person-centred care."

It was added that the home only had one activity co-ordinator for the whole establishment - which at the time of the visit was home to 106 residents.

The CI said that this made it difficult for the co-ordinate to reach residents in a meaningful way - an issue which was raised for staff in general.

Report documents continued: "We saw on a number of occasions people sitting for extended lengths of time in small sitting rooms with no engagement from staff.

Buckreddan Care Centre. (Image: Street View)

"This could make people feel isolated and lonely. People told us that they were 'fed up' and 'bored'."

While more troubling aspects included the handling of personal care information.

The CI report noted that information on wound care was not always up to date, while ther were gaps in other charts charts containing information of personal care.

“We have concern that the care record system does not evidence how individuals' healthcare needs or risks were being managed," the report stated.

"This could result in people's healthcare being compromised and them not being protected from harm.”

Similar findings were echoed in the report's findings on how well care and support is planned in the home.

Documents added that there was minimal information in the plans to detail the choices and wishes of people regarding their end-of-life care. This would not direct staff to respect people's choices at this time.

One further section of the report also branded leadership at Buckreddan as weak for a number of reasons.

READ MORE: Anam Cara: Care Inspectorate report praises dementia respite service

It said that while there were some audits in place - they were not all being completed regularly, and action plans developed from audits showed outstanding issues.

The CI stated that this made it difficult to determine that issues identified had been actioned and had resulted in improvement of outcomes for people as actions had not been verified.

The report added: "Our findings highlighted the need for a more organised approach to quality assurance.

"We had concerns that the issues we identified during the inspection had not been picked up through quality audits."

While the findings of the report returned to concerns that residents views were being taken on board.

It was stated that there was "minimal evidence" to show how the views and comments of people had influenced service improvement.

And while it was noted that one improvement plan was in place, it appeared to be driven by a previous CI report.

Documents added: "This approach does not reflect an understanding of self-evaluation or a focus on using quality assurance systems to effectively drive improvement of outcomes for people."

As a result of the findings, Buckreddan Care Centre have been set a number of requirements and areas for improvement to be met ahead of future CI visits.

We contacted the care centre for comment on the most recent findings, though no response had been received at the time of writing.