Selly Oak care home for elderly placed in special measures
CQC inspectors found care had deteriorated and the service breached five legal regulations relating to safe care, safeguarding, the physical environment, management and treating people with respect.The home has been given the lowest possible rating of inadequate for being safe and well-led, down from requires improvement.Ratings for being effective, caring and responsive have also dropped, from good to requires improvement.The CQC said it would now closely monitor the home to ensure residents' safety while improvements were made.Regulatory action is also being taken to address concerns, which the home has the right to appeal.The resident's death was not examined as part of the inspection in May, the CQC said, as it was subject to further inquiries.
'Unacceptable treatment'
CQC's deputy director for the Midlands Amanda Lyndon said widespread issues were found.Two staff members were also seen acting "inappropriately towards a resident" during the inspector's visit, Ms Lyndon said."Managers didn't have an effective strategy to prevent inappropriate behaviour or take action to safeguard people when bullying, harassment or abuse happened."It is unacceptable that people who relied on staff to act as their advocates, in a place they called home, treated them this way."Managers have been informed where "rapid and widespread" improvements are needed, with the CQC returning to check progress at a later date.
In a statement on Bryony House's website, Ms Whittaker said the report did not "fully or fairly reflect the work, dedication, and commitment of our care team" and included "a number of allegations and findings that we believe were either inaccurate or not properly investigated".She said several points raised were not discussed with staff at the time and did not "accurately reflect the day-to-day operations or the care provided"."Our team - many of whom have served this home and its residents with compassion and professionalism for years - feels demoralised by how their efforts have been portrayed," she added.The home was taking steps to identify areas for "genuine improvement, while also challenging inaccuracies through the appropriate channels," Ms Whittaker said.She said staff were committed to working with the CQC to ensure the home moved out of special measures quickly.
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Don't turn new drivers into amateur ambulances
New rules from the DVSA will ensure that new drivers will be tested on their CPR skills in order to get their licence. I would refresh readers on what CPR is, but two-thirds of Britons already know how to perform this first aid function. Yet, new drivers will be forced to undertake testing on the subject in order to do what they took the test for in the first place. To drive. Already, the RAC estimates that the total cost of learning to drive can exceed £2,000. With waiting lists for tests exceeding five months, and an ongoing reform package not expected to take a hold until the summer of next year, these new changes needlessly add extra strains to an already rigorous driving examination. Since 2020, it has been mandatory to undertake first aid and CPR training as part of our school curriculum. In primary school, basic wound dressing and speaking to emergency services is taught, whilst in the secondary stages, rubber mannequins are deployed. Often St John's Ambulance or qualified staff will step in to rigorously teach compressions, breaths, and the Bee Gees (Staying Alive) in classrooms. In extra curricular activities, such as the Scouts, Cadets, or sports teams, first aid courses are also encouraged, or even form part of the participation tests. This is important – heart attacks happen on the pitch and in the pool, and there has been a very successful campaign to deploy 100,000 defibrillators across the UK in recent years, which is equivalent to the number of heart attacks per year. However, we do not know whether adding additional tests for young drivers will do anything to change the status quo to save more lives. Most people injured or killed in a car crash do not suffer from cardiac arrest. Rather it is blunt force trauma, deep lacerations and contusions, and shock that brings passengers, drivers, and pedestrians to the hospital. It is the inadequacies of the health service that is the central problem. Most ambulances still arrive past their targets, putting pressure on drivers to pick up the slack. But CPR, even if performed properly, can only do so much for major incidents. It cannot be incumbent upon drivers to take up the job of paramedics and rush to the nearest mangled car collision and provide the necessary treatment. Indeed, there is additional risk to encouraging young drivers, especially if they're shocked following an accident they've been involved in, to provide CPR. Poorly given CPR could result in battery charges, and could endanger the very person they are trying to resuscitate. Enough news stories about these amateur ambulance drivers and headlines of litigations, it may put even the most CPR-qualified drivers off leaping into the fray. If the Government wants to get serious about preventing driving accidents, they must start with the quality of our roads. Highways maintenance will only rise by £200m by the end of this Parliament, far short of what is required to fix the potted pavements and decaying road-signs that blight our tarmac. Likewise, the consideration should be given to the Government's continual pressure towards heavier electric vehicles (which are on average 400kg heavier than their hydrocarbon counterparts). These monstering hulks, which tear up our roads, and collide with more force, will do more damage to a driver or pedestrian than CPR could possible hope to recover.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Anti-vax conspiracy theorist mother repeatedly interrupted paramedics as they tried to save her cancer-stricken daughter's life, inquest hears
An anti-vax conspiracy theorist accused of persuading her cancer-stricken daughter to reject conventional medicine interrupted paramedics who were trying to give her emergency care as she lay dying, an inquest heard. Cambridge graduate Paloma Shemirani, 23, died at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in July last year after declining assistance for non-Hodgkin lymphoma which doctors say was treatable. Her mother, Kay 'Kate' Shemirani – who attracted a large social media following after sharing Covid-19 conspiracy theories – claims the real responsibility for her daughter's death lies with medical staff who 'administered drugs without her consent' and was given an 'overdose' by the 999 crew who attended her. However, the first paramedic on the scene told the inquest at Kent and Medway Coroner's Court Mrs Shemirani 'presented a challenge' to the ambulance crew who were trying to save Paloma's life. Robin Bass, of the South-East Coast Ambulance Service, said: 'The patient's mother presented a challenge. 'She kept interrupting while the crew were carrying out care.' Mr Bass, an experienced paramedic for the South-East Coast Ambulance Service, told how Mrs Shemirani told him that Paloma had a 'lymphoma' or growth in her chest but denied that she was suffering from cancer. He said: 'The patient's mother reported that the patient had been discharged from hospital and was not receiving active treatment and was receiving alternative treatment. Her mother, Kay 'Kate' Shemirani claims the real responsibility for her daughter's death lies with medical staff who 'administered drugs without her consent' and was given an 'overdose' by the 999 crew who attended her 'When I stated to the ambulance crew that this could be cancer, the mother said it was not and that it was a recent event. 'She was focused on the choking from food. 'I gave reassurance that the patient was being given the best possible care.' Mr Bass told the inquest that following the incident he had completed a safeguarding report due to Mrs Shemirani He told the court: 'There was concern over refusal of treatment and possible influence of the patient's mother.' During almost two hours of ferocious and at times bad tempered cross questioning from Mrs Shemirani the wrong-sized medical equipment to administer emergency care to 'slim' Paloma. A second paramedic, Karen Clark, told the inquest that she administered three doses of adrenaline to Paloma who did not have a pulse or a heartbeat, despite frantic medical attention. However, Mrs Shemirani accused her of killing her daughter with an overdose of the powerful revival drug. She asked Karen Clark: 'Are you aware that adrenaline can kill?' Miss Clark replied: 'I did not overdose the patient. 'At no point did Paloma have a pulse or a heartbeat. 'If a patient is in cardiac arrest, it's not possible for me to kill them.' Kate Shemirani claimed that her daughter Paloma was killed by an overdose of adrenaline and that medical services had conspired to cover up their involvement in her death. She also challenged South-East Coast Ambulance paramedic Daniel Cody about a report he wrote that initially reported that Paloma had been given four doses of adrenaline by the 999 crews – in contravention with good practice. Previously the inquest has heard from Paloma's twin brother Gabriel (pictured) who claimed that his sister had died because their mother had 'obstructed' her from receiving cancer treatment Paramedic Daniel Cody told the court that he had made an 'error' in this report and that his colleagues had not given the patient a fourth dose of adrenaline, but that a different drug had been administered by the Helicopter Emergency Service Medical Service [HEMS] team. A fourth dose of adrenaline was given later by the HEMS team. In an emotional outburst Mrs Shemirani told the court: 'If one could be a conspiracy theorist, I could say there has been a big conspiracy cover up. 'That would be my opinion.' The inquest also heard from Dr David Bentley who was also scrambled to Uckfield to help treat Paloma after she collapsed at home while eating. Dr Bentley told the court that he believed that the 23-year-old suffered breathing difficulties due to a cancer tumour blocking her airway. He said: 'I suspected that her breathing difficulty was caused by the tumour.' Dr Bentley was questioned intensively by Mrs Shemirani about his use of adrenaline to resuscitate Paloma. She said: 'I'm going to ask this question as the mother of my daughter. 'In all of the [medical] literature, it's very clear that an overdose of adrenaline causes the symptoms [that Paloma suffered en route to hospital] - pink frothy mucus pouring from her nose and pulmonary oedema.' Dr Bentley replied: 'I'm disagreeing that an overdose of adrenaline did cause the incidents in the ambulance.' Previously the inquest has heard from Paloma's twin brother Gabriel who claimed that his sister had died because their mother had 'obstructed' her from receiving cancer treatment. He said: 'I blame my mother entirely for my sister's death. 'In short I believe that she sacrificed Paloma's life for her own principles, I believe that she should be held accountable for Paloma's death.' Yesterday Gabriel asked each of the paramedics whether his mother's decision to call a friend before dialling 999 after Paloma had collapsed while eating had affected her chance of survival. Both replied that it was impossible to say. He also thanked each of them for trying to save his sister's life. He told each of them: 'Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your efforts trying to save my sister's life.' Paloma's brother Gabriel thanked Dr Bentley 'greatly' for his efforts trying to save his sister's life. He added: 'I would like to apologise for the moronic questions put to you by my parents.' At the time of Paloma's initial cancer diagnosis in autumn 2023, she was estranged from her mother, but then came under her influence, the inquest has heard. The inquest was adjourned until 27th August. Coroner Catherine Wood told the court she is expected to give her findings on the 3rd September. Ms Shemirani was struck off as a nurse in 2021, and a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) committee found she had spread Covid-19 misinformation that 'put the public at a significant risk of harm'.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour ‘misled' public over NHS waiting lists
Labour has 'misled' the public about the reasons why the NHS waiting list has fallen, two leading think tanks have warned. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, had said the 260,000 drop in the NHS backlog since the general election 'was not a coincidence', adding that it was because of 'record investment and fundamental NHS reform'. But a new Quality Watch report – a joint project between the Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation think tanks – found 245,000 appointments were being removed every month because patients died, had treatment elsewhere or moved abroad, rather than because treatment had finished. Some 2.4 million appointments and operations have been removed from the NHS backlog since Labour took power as part of a so-called 'validation process', which involves deleting any appointments for patients hospitals no longer think need to be seen. The researchers had to calculate the figures manually because they are not explicitly reported in NHS data, and said ministers should be more 'transparent' in their paper, first reported by the Health Service Journal on Wednesday. They calculated the total removals by looking at the number of appointments taken from the 'expected waiting list' that then did not appear in the 'reported waiting list' as either waiting or having finished treatment. The authors pointed out that even the NHS's 'own data shows it is still treating fewer patients than are being referred'. 'Government was not clear' For example, when Mr Streeting said the waiting list had fallen during April 'for the first time in 17 years', the researchers pointed out that on an average working day that month, there were 13,141 people being added to the backlog but 14,608 being deleted without undergoing treatment. The Quality Watch report said the Government does not make the impact of validation and other 'unreported removals' sufficiently clear. The research, authored by Georgia Watson and Dr Elizabeth Fisher of the Nuffield Trust, said: 'Until more transparent reporting is provided, accountability around unreported removals remains impossible and the planned care waiting list will continue to be a misleading indicator of how the NHS is dealing with demand. 'While the waiting list has started to go down, unreported removals have gone up. In fact, they have repeatedly outnumbered the additional incomplete referrals that join the waiting list every month,' they wrote. 'This tells us that, across several months, there were more [appointment referrals] being removed from the waiting list without being marked as complete than [new referrals] joining the list.' They said the monthly removals of almost a quarter of a million equate 'to around 3 per cent of the waiting list'. Patients who no longer need appointments have always been removed from the waiting list but they have recently had a 'more noticeable impact'. 'Since September 2023, this shift has helped the NHS get control of the waiting list, even while according to its own data it is still treating fewer patients than are being referred,' the report said. 'We are freeing up capacity' A Department of Health spokesman said: 'Our drive to clear the huge waiting list backlog we inherited includes making sure all patients are getting the right treatment as quickly as possible. 'That's why we are supporting GPs to seek specialist advice before making referrals, and screening existing waiting lists to check that all patients need to be on there, freeing up capacity to get more people seen more quickly. 'This is one element of our wider work to cut waiting times for patients and improve productivity through our Plan for Change, through which we have already delivered over 4 million extra appointments and cut the waiting list by 260,000.' An NHS spokesman said: 'NHS staff have made significant progress in reducing waiting lists in the last year – down by more than 260,000 since June 2024 – and this is driven by the fact that 2,300 more patients are receiving treatment every day compared to last year. 'While the validation process has a small impact on the overall waiting list – as is made crystal clear in our published monthly waiting list data – it's right we regularly clinically review those waiting so hospitals can prioritise patients more accurately and deploy their resources efficiently.'
