Archived: Rainscombe House

Updated 23 July 2024

Rainscombe House is a residential care home providing personal care for up to three people. Three people with a learning disability or autism lived at the service. We completed this assessment between 06 August 2024 and 13 August 2024. We found continued concerns to our inspection in November and December 2023. Staff did not follow guidance around risks to people and poor medicines practices were observed. There were not always sufficient levels of suitably qualified and trained staff deployed to ensure people's safety. People were at risk of abuse due to institutional neglect. People’s environment was not a safe place for them to live. People did not receive person centred care, and people were not always treated with kindness or respect. People’s healthcare needs were known, but guidance from healthcare professionals was not followed. Governance and quality monitoring was inadequate: leaders did not have the skills or competence to ensure the service was well led. As part of our assessment methodology for people with a learning disability and autistic people, we assess if services are meeting the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC) statutory guidance. This includes: Right support: Model of care and setting maximises people's choice, control and independence. Right care: Care is person-centred and promotes people's dignity, privacy and human rights. Right culture: Ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives. The service did not meet RSRCRC guidance. This service remains in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of care they provide.

Updated 23 July 2024

People were not enabled or supported to live meaningful or fulfilling lives. People’s wishes were not respected, and we observed numerous occasions where people were ignored by staff. Some people had been supported to attend new activities, yet others were still not receiving person-centred individualised care. In addition, as people all required 1:1 staffing when out in the community and there were only 2 staff on duty, this restricted their opportunities to go out. People lived in an environment that was not always safe for them. For example, the back garden contained a number of items which could present a risk. People still continued to receive food that was not in line with professional guidance which meant there was a high risk of choking. Some people’s health conditions were not consistently or robustly monitored and as such this meant they may not receive their required medicines. People received care from staff who did not always treat them or their home with respect.