A care home that looks after older people, some with dementia, has been rated 'inadequate' and placed in special measures after a recent inspection found practices at the service placed people at risk of harm.

The Care Quality Commission inspected Aarondale Care Home in Chorley at the beginning of March, and in a report published last week, inspectors rated the safety, effectiveness and leadership at the care home as 'inadequate', with the caring and responsive areas found to 'require improvement' after multiple breaches of regulations were found.

Among the shortfalls witnessed by the inspectors were issues around residents not always receiving their medicines safely; fire exits partially blocked; out of date management records; gaps in training and compromises in people's dignity.

This was the first inspection carried out by the CQC since the service was registered with the watchdog in October 2020. Under the former service providers the last inspection rating given was 'good'.

The inspection found that people were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed, as there was a lack of guidance for staff on how to safely administer medicines.

The report also stated: "The premises were not safe. We found a can of vinyl adhesive which was labelled as highly flammable left in a communal toilet.

"The door to the maintenance room was left propped open for a prolonged period of time, which placed people at risk of harm from sharp tools and toxic chemicals.

"We observed a fire exit and fire evacuation chair on a stairwell obstructed by items such as vacuum cleaners, walking aids and cardboard boxes. This placed people at risk of exiting the building in the event of an emergency. We highlighted our concerns to the fire service.

"People were at risk of general environmental risks. The radiator in one person's bedroom was excessively hot to the touch meaning there was a risk of a burning injury. Another person assessed as being at risk of falls required a sensor mat to help minimise this risk. However, when we visited this person in their room, the sensor mat was out of reach and unplugged."

The CQC also found that accidents and incidents had not been recorded correctly, and there were staff training failures.

One member of staff told the inspectors: "I've had no fire safety training, no mock drills and no shadowing. I've seen seniors recruited into the role with no experience."

There was also a lack of guidance for staff on how to support people with their specific dietary requirements, and people were at risk of eating potentially contaminated food.

An inspection of the kitchen found some foods, including soft cheeses, were out of date and foods that had been opened were not dated, meaning they were potentially unsafe to consume.

The report stated: "We observed people having lunch and found people being served with food which was different to that stated on the menu and food which was badly burnt. We had to intervene and ask the chef to serve people with an alternative.

"One person told us, "Food is poor, I tend to just have a sandwich. We never get told what we are having"."

There were also concerns over some residents requiring liquidised diets not receiving food that had been blended and there were issues with a lack of water available to residents to help them stay hydrated throughout the day. 

In terms of care plans, the CQC found that plans were lacking in detail about people's choices and preferences regarding their care and support, and inspectors found no evidence that people's relatives had any involvement in the care plan process.

Shockingly, one person's care plan referred to them by a different name and the incorrect gender and people did not always receive their own clothes to wear.

The report went on: "We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, need for consent, staff training, meeting nutritional and hydration needs and good governance at this inspection.

"The overall rating for this service is 'inadequate' and the service is therefore in 'special measures.'

"This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider's registration, we will re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvement.

"If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe, and there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures.

"This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service.

"This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration."