Nursing home business ordered to pay more than £81,000

Birmingham Magistrates Court UK: monkeybusinessimages

Oldbury Grange Nursing Home Ltd has been ordered to pay more than £81,000 at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court after it failed to protect residents from avoidable harm.

The company, which operated Oldbury Grange Nursing Home in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, was fined £66,000 and ordered to pay a £170 victim surcharge and just over £15,000 costs to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which brought the prosecution.

On 11 November 2017 a female resident was attacked by someone with known mental health issues, within hours of them being admitted to the home. Due to the company not having adequate systems and processes in place for assessing new admissions, it did not carry out proper checks to mitigate any risk to that person or others. As a result, the female resident suffered a head injury. She died on 23 January 2018.

The CQC also prosecuted the provider for another incident concerning a male resident who had a catheter fitted, with a history of complications. He became unwell for several days. He was admitted to hospital on 25 December 2018 but died a day later. The provider did not have adequate processes in place for recognising and responding to peoples’ health when it deteriorated.

Oldbury Grange Nursing Home Ltd pleaded guilty to failing to provide safe care and treatment resulting in a female resident being caused avoidable harm, and for exposing a male resident to significant risk of avoidable harm.

Oldbury Grange Nursing Home provided care for up to 89 people. It closed in November 2021 and residents transferred to alternative services.

Amanda Lyndon, CQC head of adult social care inspection, said: ‘Two residents at Oldbury Grange Nursing Home were catastrophically let down by the care provider’s poor systems and processes. CQC expects all residents to receive care and treatment in a safe way.

‘Oldbury Grange Nursing Home Ltd failed in its specific legal duty to protect residents from being exposed to a significant risk of harm, which is why they have been fined £66,000.’