Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Argyle House, Dallington, Northampton.

Argyle House in Dallington, Northampton is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 14th June 2019

Argyle House is managed by Countrywide Care Homes (2) Limited who are also responsible for 15 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Argyle House
      The Avenue
      Dallington
      Northampton
      NN5 7AJ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01604589089

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Inadequate
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Inadequate
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Inadequate
Overall: Inadequate

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-06-14
    Last Published 2019-01-17

Local Authority:

    Northamptonshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

13th September 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This unannounced inspection took place over three days on 13, 18 and 19 September 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced, we carried out announced visits on the second and third days.

Argyle House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Argyle House is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care to up to 87 people in one adapted building. The home is set out over four floors, with each floor set up as a separate unit providing a particular type of care; these are residential dementia care, nursing care, dementia-nursing care and residential care. At the time of the inspection there were 60 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the previous comprehensive inspection on 3 and 4 April 2018 the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We found concerns in relation to the governance of the service, record keeping and the measures in place to ensure that people’s personal information was stored securely. We also found concerns with staff deployment in the home. The provider was in breach of two regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements in relation to the governance of the service, confidentiality, record keeping and staffing levels. The provider submitted an action plan detailing the improvements that they would make to comply with the regulations.

At this comprehensive inspection, we have found that the required improvements have not been made. The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe. If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.”

Many of the people using the service were extremely vulnerable, and highly dependent on the care and nursing staff supporting them. Our observations of peoples' needs, during our inspection showed that they were not always receiving the necessary support to ensure risks to t

3rd April 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on the 3 and 4 April 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced and we carried out an announced visit on the second day.

Argyle House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Argyle House is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care to up to 87 people in one adapted building. The home is set out over four floors, with each floor set up as a separate unit providing a particular type of care; these are residential dementia care, nursing care, dementia-nursing care and residential care. At the time of the inspection there were 59 people living in the home.

At the last inspection, on the 28 and 29 June 2016, the service was rated “Good.” At this inspection we found that aspects of the service had deteriorated and we have rated the service as overall “Requires Improvement.”

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The service had been without a registered manager for twelve months, a new manager had recently been recruited and commenced work at the service in January 2018. They had applied to CQC to register as manager for the service and their application was being processed at the time of inspection.

Systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not effective at identifying shortfalls. Where shortfalls were identified these were not addressed in a sufficiently timely manner. Health and safety checks had not resulted in sufficient action to mitigate risks to people’s health and safety.

People’s care records were not stored securely and records of care provided to people were not sufficiently detailed. Records related to people’s wishes regarding the end of their life had not been reviewed by their GP as often as necessary.

The service was not able to demonstrate that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. People sometimes had to wait for staff to support them and staff were often rushed; this negatively affected people’s experience of care.

Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff that were unsuitable to work at the service. People felt safe in the home and received care and support from staff that understood their responsibility to keep people safe. Staff induction training and on-going training was provided to ensure that staff had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Staff had access to appropriate support and received one to one supervisions with their line manager.

There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff provided people with information to enable them to make informed decisions and encouraged people to make their own choices.

People received enough to eat and drink and had a choice of meals and snacks. People were supported by staff to use and access a variety of other services and social care professionals. The staff had a good knowledge of other services available to people and we saw these had been involved with supporting people using the service.

People were supported to access health appointments when required to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely.

People were listened to, their views we

28th June 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This unannounced inspection took place over two days on 28 and 29 June 2016.

Argyle House is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 87 people who may be living with physical disability or dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 61 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staffing levels had been calculated to reflect the dependency levels of people living in the home. However, at times the number of staff on duty did not correspond to the number of staff required and there were not always sufficient staff to ensure that people’s needs were met in the way that they chose.

People felt safe in the home and relatives said they had no concerns about people’s safety. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.

Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff that were unsuitable to work at the service. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person.

Care records contained individual risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and help to keep them safe. They provided information to staff about action to be taken to minimise any risks whilst allowing people to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were written in a person centred approach and detailed how people wished to be supported. Where possible people were involved in making decisions about their care. People participated in a range of activities and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had good relationships with the people that lived at the house. Staff responded to complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to and acted upon. There was a stable management team and effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.

15th June 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This unannounced inspection took place on 16 June 2015. Argyle House has four floors providing care for up to 87 people with varying care needs including those living with dementia and those that require nursing care. Two floors provide residential care and two floors provide nursing care.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People lived on one of four floors, where their experiences differed according to their complexity of needs and the staff team that looked after them.

Recommendations made by health professionals were not always carried out, which resulted in people not always getting sufficient support to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

Risks to people were not always appropriately identified and managed. Staff had received the appropriate training but they did not always carry out care in line with their training.

People did not always receive the care that was planned and people were not always able to summon assistance when they needed, although there were enough staff on duty to provide care and support to people when they needed it.

People were not consistently treated with compassion, kindness, dignity or respect and their experience of care differed depending on their level of dependency and ability to speak up and be heard.

The manager and staff had a good understanding of meeting people’s legal rights and the correct processes were being followed regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. However people’s ability to influence their day to day care differed depending on which floor of the home they lived and whether they could speak for themselves.

People and their relatives had not been enabled to offer feedback or to influence how the home was run. The culture in the home was predominately task orientated and there was no encouragement from the manager to be creative in planning care. The quality monitoring was not always effective and needed to be strengthened.

We identified a number of areas where the provider was in breach of Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2014 (Part 3) and you can see at the end to this report the action we have asked them to take.

11th March 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

This inspection was a follow up inspection to one that was completed in October 2013 where we identified concerns with the service. During this inspection there were 59 people using the service. We found that improvements had been made since the last inspection.

We spoke with 13 people who used the service and they all told us that staff were kind, one person told us “Staff listen and they are kind”, another person told us “staff treat you nicely”.

We spoke with four relatives of people that used the service, they all told us they were happy with the care their relative received. One relative told us “Staff are kind, and he gets what he needs”.

We spoke with four members of staff; they told us that there was enough staff to meet people’s needs and they described new ways of working that had provided more time to care for people who used the service.

We found that people had been treated with respect and dignity. We found that there were enough staff to provide activities to improve people’s well-being and enough staff to provide care to meet their needs.

The provider had improved the quality monitoring systems to ensure that there was enough staff to meet people’s needs.

16th October 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We spoke with nine people who used the service they all told us that the staff took a long time to answer bells, especially at night. We observed that two of these people could not reach their call bell.

We visited six people who could not communicate verbally. We saw that four of these people could use the call bell, but did not have access to their call bell.

We spoke with four people who had recently moved from the ground floor of the home to another part of the home. They all told us that they had not been consulted and had not had any choice about moving.

We spoke with five relatives of people who use the service they all told us that they had observed that there were not enough staff to meet their relative’s needs.

We spoke with five members of staff who all told us that there were not enough staff to provide all the care that people needed.

We found that there had been improvements in the risk assessments and care planning. We found that the provider had moved people around the home without consultation or respect for their opinions. We found that people did not always have access to their call bells. We found that some people were woken early in the morning to be washed and dressed when this was not their preference. We found that there were not enough staff to meet people’s needs.

4th June 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

During this inspection we followed up on previous concerns about the management of medicines at Argyle House. We found there had been improvements in all areas of storing, administering and recording of medicines.

We found that staff at Argyle House were not following procedures that were designed to keep people's valuables secure.

4th February 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us “they know how to look after me”, another said “the staff know me very well”.

We spoke with four relatives of the people who use the service, one told us “the staff understand how to care for him”, others said “they keep me well informed”, “the staff have improved over the last few months and “my mother always looks content”.

During our last inspection 1 October 2012 we found a number of concerns. During our inspection of 4 February 2013 found that the service had created and followed action plans that had led to an improvement in the service they provided.

14th November 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We spoke with people who used the service who told us they were happy with the care and attention they received at the home. We spoke with relatives who told us that the management had kept them informed of the changes being made at Argyle House to improve the care of the people who live there.

We found that there had been a vast improvement in the care provided by staff at Argyle House since our inspection of 1 October 2012. We saw that the assessment, planning, implementing and evaluation of care were carried out and recorded and delivered in accordance with the people's needs.

1st October 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We spoke with people who use the service; they told us that they have to wait for long periods for their call bells to be answered and to use equipment that is shared amongst other residents. We found that there was not enough staff or suitable equipment to meet people’s needs. We spoke with relatives who said that staff were continuously moved between floors, so that there was no continuity of care. We spoke with district nurses who said that the nursing staff were not suitably trained to provide some of the care the service users require. We found that the nursing staff had not received training in key areas of care. We found that there were not enough staff to meet the service users’ needs.

18th May 2012 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

We spoke with people who used the service; some found living there pleasant. One person said “I have no complaints, I have a free and easy life”, “I get the opportunity to go out shopping, and my family visits me regularly”. Another person told us “the home is very good, the staff are wonderful”.

We also found that some people were not so happy. One person told us that the call bells sounded for long periods during the night. They said that when they had used the call bell, it could take up to three quarters of an hour for staff to answer. Another person told us “the only time staff speak to me is when they are washing me or asking me what I want for dinner”

People were generally satisfied with the meals offered.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with 6 people who used the home, they all told us they were happy at the home. However, three people told us that sometimes they had to wait for long periods to have their call bells answered.

We spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. One relative described how the staff at the home had provided very good care to two of their relatives. We spoke with two relatives that visited on a daily basis to spend time with their spouse in the home. They told us they were happy with the care provided.

We spoke with five members of staff. Three of them told us that the staffing was not consistent, and at times they were short of staff. Two members of staff told us that they felt supported in their work.

We found that most people had assessments and their care was planned. However, we found that people with diabetes did not have a complete plan of care and errors had been made with the administration of their insulin. We also had concerns about the management of medicines as procedures were not being followed and errors had been made. We looked at the staffing levels and found that although there was an induction and training programme in place, there were not enough experienced and skilled staff to cover all of the shifts. We also looked at the cooperation with the GP practices and found that the provider was not receiving all the support they required.

 

 

Latest Additions: