A CARE home said it had been re-inspected by a watchdog after it threatened to take legal action when inspectors rated it inadequate.
Bluewater Care Home, in Portsmouth, hit back at the Care Quality Commission (CQC) saying their report published last month was not a clear reflection of its service.
The home, on Kingston Road, was given the lowest rating following a visit in December last year.
But after raising concerns with the CQC and threatening to take them to court, the home was re-inspected yesterday with a new report expected to be published soon.
During the December visit inspectors looked at five different criteria rating it as ‘requires improvement for being effective, caring and responsive’ and ‘inadequate for being safe and well-led.’
But the owners and management team of Bluewater Care Home defended its service. They even paid for an independent company to do the same inspection three days after the CQC visited, with the company rating them as good.
A statement from the home said: ‘All we want is an honest and truthful report of the home. Other owners have expressed their deep concern over the unfair practices carried out by the CQC.
‘We have the full support of all the residents and relatives and we fill we owe a duty to them as well as our dedicated amazing carers who are frequently praised by everyone, every day.
‘The quality of our care is the only important consideration.’
The statement added Bluewater Care Home had ‘overwhelming and compelling’ evidence to prove they should not have been rated inadequate.
The current report has since been removed from the CQC website and a new one will be published soon with the findings of yesterday’s visit.
Deborah Ivanova, the CQC’s deputy chief inspector for adult social care in the south, said: ‘CQC inspection staff adhere to clearly set-out key lines of enquiry to guide their inspections.
‘When tackling areas of concern, we use a national enforcement policy to ensure that we take a consistent and proportionate approach to regulation.
‘Whenever we rate a service or take any form of enforcement action, we will always clearly state the evidence on which these have been based – and providers have the opportunity to challenge these as part of our factual accuracy process.
‘Consistency is one of the core principles that underpin our regulatory approach.’
The watchdog added: ‘Following the publication of our reports, providers have the opportunity to ask for a review of their rating(s) if they believe we have not followed our processes. We are fair and open about this.’