An earlier version of this article contained an inaccurate description of the Care Inspectorate’s findings on the locking of doors at Heathfield House. While this inaccuracy was corrected as soon as possible, the Advertiser wishes to apologise to Heathfield House staff, residents and families for any inconvenience, distress or upset caused.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AN Ayr care home which was labelled by inspectors as being "at risk of cross infection" has still not met some key requirements imposed by Scotland's care watchdog.

Back in November, the Advertiser reported that the Care Inspectorate, which carried out an unannounced inspection of Heathfield House in Forbes Drive on October 25, had given the home a "weak" rating in all inspection categories.

That report found that inspectors had concerns regarding the management of residents' continence needs, the management of medication, and the approach to care by some staff.

Inspectors also found a risk of infection in the home.

Eight requirements were put in place by the Care Inspectorate following the October inspection.

And now a follow-up report has found that some of these requirements are still not being met, and that in one of the home's four units, some bedroom doors were found to be locked.

The Care Inspectorate's latest report on Heathfield, published on January 9, is based on an unannounced follow-up inspection which was carried out on December 20 and 21.

It lists eight requirements which were made on November 14 following the initial October inspection.

Four of those requirements, they said, had to be met by December 19 - but of those four, only one was met.

Of the other three, the requirements have been reinstated with new, extended timescales: one, relating to the practice of locking some bedroom doors, must be met by February 13, and the other two by March 12.

The remaining four requirements which were made in November were, at that time, given deadlines of either February 13 or March 12, and so were not assessed at the follow-up inspection.

The report found that while staff had undergone training to make sure that continence needs and wound care for people living in the service are effectively managed and met, not all the records to evidence wound care for individuals were up to date.

In their follow-up, inspectors also found that gaps in records to evidence the frequency of wound dressings and care plans were not reflective of the care being delivered, and that wound care plans were not being evaluated.

The Care Inspectorate was also unable to determine if wound care was effective for everyone.

The report also found that invidivial care plans were not being evaluated properly.

In one of the home's units it was found that some bedroom doors were locked, which, inspectors said, was "viewed as restraint".

The report said: "We saw that corridor doors were open in all units. However, at one point during the inspection, staff closed corridor doors in one unit which limited the movement of people living there.

"Creating such barriers limits people's movement and could impact on their wellbeing.

"In three out of the four units, bedroom doors were unlocked and some residents had their own key for their bedroom.

"However, in one unit we found that some bedroom doors were locked. We spoke with staff who told us that they usually locked some of the bedroom doors.

"Care plans did not explain why bedroom doors were being locked.

"Locking bedroom doors does not afford people full freedom of movement and is viewed as restraint.

"If individuals' independence, control and choice are restricted, it should comply with relevant legislation.

"Any restrictions need to be justified, kept to a minimum and carried out sensitively."

To read the full report visit here.