Recent actions taken by CQC against two care homes in the South East has highlighted the complex network of authorities involved in regulating this sector, and the importance of changes being
Recent actions taken by CQC against two care homes in the South East has highlighted the complex network of authorities involved in regulating this sector, and the importance of changes being introduced in April.
Three care homes in the Sutton area (Merok Park, Grantley Court and Faygate House) were the subject of recent inspections by CQC. All had the same proprietors. After a very poor inspection in September 2014 Grantley Court was given a notice of proposal to remove CQC registration. As a result the owner informed CQC that he would be closing the home.
On 28 November and 1 December 2014 further inspections took place at Merok Park which revealed very serious concerns. On 10 December 2014 CQC took emergency action to close the home and residents were all moved to alternative accommodation. A few days later Grantley Court also closed when the local authority decided to move all of the residents before its intended closure date. It has been reported that Mr Cooppen had also previously been served with notices of a breach of health and safety legislation. Inspections are also ongoing at Faygate House.
The closures have highlighted the complexity of managing the closure of care homes and ensuring that similar incidents do not happen again; as well as CQC, the relevant local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive were also involved in the closures. While some family members have questioned why the care homes were not closed earlier, many commentators have noted that moving older, and potentially seriously unwell, people (a necessary step when closing a home) can also be harmful. Media reports suggest that, since the closures, there may have been investigations by the police into the treatment of the residents and the Border Force into potential illegal working at the homes.
CQC is entitled to take a range of actions when it is not satisfied with the quality of care provided by registered providers or managers. This can range from requesting a report on how the provider or manager will improve the service to immediate cancellation. Cancellation is normally an action of last resort after other attempts to improve the service have failed, due to the disruption this causes to service users. However it can also be done urgently in cases of major failures. CQC also has the power to bring prosecutions against providers and directors, in addition to criminal investigations by the police. It is interesting to note that all three care homes were inspected under the old inspection scheme; CQC is currently introducing a new inspection scheme that will focus on asking whether the service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The closure of Merok Park has also been referred to by Andrea Sutcliffe, the Chief Inspector of Adult Social Care at CQC, as an example of the importance of it using its regulatory powers when it is not possible to sufficiently improve a service.
Three care homes in the Sutton area (Merok Park, Grantley Court and Faygate House) were the subject of recent inspections by CQC. All had the same proprietors. After a very poor inspection in September 2014 Grantley Court was given a notice of proposal to remove CQC registration. As a result the owner informed CQC that he would be closing the home.
On 28 November and 1 December 2014 further inspections took place at Merok Park which revealed very serious concerns. On 10 December 2014 CQC took emergency action to close the home and residents were all moved to alternative accommodation. A few days later Grantley Court also closed when the local authority decided to move all of the residents before its intended closure date. It has been reported that Mr Cooppen had also previously been served with notices of a breach of health and safety legislation. Inspections are also ongoing at Faygate House.
The closures have highlighted the complexity of managing the closure of care homes and ensuring that similar incidents do not happen again; as well as CQC, the relevant local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive were also involved in the closures. While some family members have questioned why the care homes were not closed earlier, many commentators have noted that moving older, and potentially seriously unwell, people (a necessary step when closing a home) can also be harmful. Media reports suggest that, since the closures, there may have been investigations by the police into the treatment of the residents and the Border Force into potential illegal working at the homes.
CQC is entitled to take a range of actions when it is not satisfied with the quality of care provided by registered providers or managers. This can range from requesting a report on how the provider or manager will improve the service to immediate cancellation. Cancellation is normally an action of last resort after other attempts to improve the service have failed, due to the disruption this causes to service users. However it can also be done urgently in cases of major failures. CQC also has the power to bring prosecutions against providers and directors, in addition to criminal investigations by the police. It is interesting to note that all three care homes were inspected under the old inspection scheme; CQC is currently introducing a new inspection scheme that will focus on asking whether the service is safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The closure of Merok Park has also been referred to by Andrea Sutcliffe, the Chief Inspector of Adult Social Care at CQC, as an example of the importance of it using its regulatory powers when it is not possible to sufficiently improve a service.