North East care homes where 27 died from Covid rated 'weak' by care inspectorate

Two North East care homes which experienced Covid outbreaks resulting in 27 deaths have been rated as 'weak' by the Care inspectorate.

Both Inchmarlo House near Banchory and Deeside Care home in Cults were reviewed on their level of care and support during the pandemic.

Family members of residents contributed to the process.

15 deaths were linked to Deeside care home with a further 12 at Inchmarlo.

In regards to Deeside the report said:

"People living in the home were supported by staff who were familiar with their needs. It was encouraging to see the commitment of the staff team to work flexibly to provide cover without the use of temporary staff. This contributed positively to staff knowing their particular likes and dislikes and providing support in a way that was right for them."

"We found that there had been delays in people being kept informed about the outbreak of COVID-19 withinthe home and the impact this was having on their family member. This had resulted in some people being concerned about their relative's wellbeing. We were able to establish that increased management support was being put in place to help support improved communication."

"We were satisfied that people had access to regular meals, snacks and drinks. Staff maintained an overview of this to ensure that they had enough to eat and drink. It was good to see staff being responsive to individual requests in addition to planned midday snacks."

"We felt there could be a more active plan for ensuring people had opportunities for planned social activity to help ensure they had a meaningful day. People spent long periods of time in their room, and it would be good to see a more active plan for one-to-one engagement. This would be particularly important for people who were self-isolating because of COVID-19 and would be a good strategy to help them comply with the need for isolation."

And the report into Inchmarlo said:

"Due to a significant outbreak of COVID 19 in the home, staff and managers were being supported by the Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP), NHS boards and other agencies. People were not actively supported to maintain contact with loved ones."

"Although staff said people were using telephone and face time to keep in touch, we received conflicting feedback about this. We were not confident that systems, used before the outbreak of COVID-19, were used consistently to support people incommunicating with those important to them."

"We found that communication with families was poor. Families frequently had to initiate contact. Families told us "There is difficulty with people answering the phone and passing on messages" and "It is frustrating not being able to see or contact my mum." As a consequence, people were not kept informed with up-todate information on the impact of COVID-19 on the care and support that residents received."

"There was a lack of meaningful activities for people. All residents were isolating in their bedrooms. The care staff did not identify that supporting people with meaningful activities was part of their role. As a result, interactions with people were limited to the times when they received support with personal care needs."

"There was no plan in place to ensure regular engagement or interactions with people in order to promote mental and physically wellbeing"

"Staff were guided by the HSCP about supporting people in isolation. Although staff understood the importance of social distancing, there were challenges in implementing guidance. Staff were not always successful in reducing anxiety about isolation. "

"There was also a lack of social engagement and people wereleft for lengthy periods without emotional support. Most support was provided in relation to the delivery of personal care. Consequently, staff did not promptly identify people who were distressed, in need of assistance or who had fallen."

"Two relatives told us they were contacted by residents who did not have a way to call staff or attract their attention. People received a choice of foods and we saw that snacks and drinks were available at set times through the day. We were concerned that some residents were not receiving required support to eat and drink well. People did not always receive additional dietary support when needed, for example dietary fortification. Monitoring of food and drinks intake was poor."

"There were established links with the local GP practice and health professionals to support health needs. However, the recording of information was not detailed enough to ensure that staff could provide individualised care to people."

More follows...