A CARE home in Cornwall has been called ‘inadequate’ by the CQC following abuse allegations and safety concerns.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has downgraded Clubworthy House in North Petherwin, Launceston, from outstanding and rated it as inadequate and placed it into special measures to protect people following an inspection in October.

Clubworthy House is a residential care home for autistic people and people with a learning disability, run by Nos Nom (No-one's Slave, No-one's Master), and at the time of the inspection, two people were living at the home.

The CQC carried out the inspection in response to concerns about people's safety and the outcomes of their care, during which, inspectors found care had deteriorated since the last inspection, with the home now in breach of four regulations relating to safeguarding, staffing, person-centred care and good management.

The CQC has now also downgraded the home’s rating for the area of caring from outstanding to inadequate, stating that ‘effective and well-led have declined from good to inadequate. The rating for responsive has dropped from outstanding to requires improvement and safe has dropped good to requires improvement.’

Following the inspection, the commission has now placed the service into special measures which involves close monitoring ‘to ensure people are safe while they make improvements’. The organisation has also expressed that special measures provides a structured timeframe so services understand when they need to make improvements by, and what action CQC will take if this doesn’t happen.

Stefan Kallee, CQC deputy director of operations in Devon, said: "When we inspected Clubworthy House, we found leaders had allowed a closed culture to develop where people weren't treated with dignity and respect, and staff felt unable to raise concerns about poor practice. Although this was a small home, every single person using care services deserves to be treated safely and with respect.

"We heard multiple serious allegations that one of the leaders had screamed in people's faces and used swear words aggressively towards them. Staff told us they'd witnessed these incidents but didn't feel able to challenge the leader’s approach. Despite having appropriate policies, the home failed to report or independently investigate these allegations of abuse.

"This meant people weren't protected from harm and couldn't be confident their concerns would be taken seriously. One person told us they felt scared and unhappy and had expressed wanting more independence and to leave the home, but there was no evidence they'd been supported to explore this.

"People had very little control over their daily lives. Staff told us activities and meals were planned in advance with limited flexibility for individual choice.

"We expect health and social care services to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the safety, choices, dignity and independence most people take for granted. It was unacceptable that leaders were allowing a culture to exist where people weren't being given these basic rights.

“CQC is monitoring the home closely to keep people safe while improvements are made and is taking further regulatory action.”

When approached for comment, Nosnom explained that it has issued a formal response to the latest Care Quality Commission report, strongly rejecting its findings and raising concerns about the process used to produce it.

The organisation has argued that the new report ‘relies heavily on allegations made by a small number of former staff members, while positive feedback from current employees has been omitted.’

A spokesperson from Nosnom explained: “All staff receive annual safeguarding training, with safeguarding discussed monthly during supervision or team meetings. No allegations of inappropriate behaviour, or allegations of screaming in people’s faces or the aggressive use of swear words were raised prior to inspection, which is why they had not been investigated.

“We welcome the opportunity to present our evidence at tribunal, where we can challenge the claims made against us and cross‑examine the evidence in full.

“We reject the conclusions of this report.”