Archived: Gwendoline House

Gwendoline House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people. At the time of the inspection, 12 people were living at the home.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe living at the home. The staff had a good understanding of what steps to take to reduce and manage any identified risks to them. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse. There were enough staff employed to meet people's needs. Medicines were administered safely by staff who had been trained to do so. Health and safety systems were robust and included checks of equipment being used. Fire systems were also checked and there was a clear process for emergency evacuation. Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed. The home was clean and had good infection prevention and control procedures in place.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The home used a range of systems and processes to monitor the quality and effectiveness provided. Any areas for improvement were recorded with actions put into place. We found any actions had been addressed timely

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 05 February 2019). The rating at this inspection remains good.

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding. We inspected two key questions, Safe and Well led.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the home remains good based on the findings of this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Gwendoline House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good.

People continued to receive a service that was safe. The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. People were supported to take risks, promote their independence and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support to people. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work to assess their suitability to support vulnerable people. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed. The home was clean and staff followed the providers infection control policy and procedures.

The service remained effective in meeting people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people’s needs. Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and, worked to ensure people's rights were respected. People were supported to enjoy a healthy, nutritious, balanced diet whilst promoting and respecting choice.

Staff provided a caring service to people and respected and promoted their dignity. People received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care amended to meet their changing needs. The service was flexible and responded very positively to people’s requests. People who used the service felt able to make requests and express their opinions and views.

People benefitted from a service that was well led. The vision, values and culture of the service were clearly communicated to and understood by staff. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems. There were processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The deputy manager was currently completing a level five qualification in management and preparing them to take over the full management of Gwendoline House in the future.

People were ‘very happy’ living at the home and we received positive comments about their views and experiences throughout our visit. Healthwatch wrote in their recent enter and view report, “We found a warm, friendly home with a very strong family atmosphere. There was much to commend. All comments from residents were positive and staff were friendly and very professional in their manner. Residents appeared relaxed and happy. There appeared to be a lot of mutual respect between staff and residents”.

There were no visitors present during our visit. However we read some recent written compliments the home had received from family members. Comments included, “Gwendoline House has been part of our lives, we have always enjoyed our visits and you make us feel so welcome”, “Your carers are so kind and caring to the residents, everyone always seem so happy” and “Thank you very much for your loving care you all do a wonderful job”.

Staff wanted to keep people safe and protect them from avoidable harm. The registered manager listened to people and staff to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. They demonstrated their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service to help ensure that staffing levels and skill mix was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They enjoyed attending training sessions and sharing what they had learnt with colleagues. The provider, registered manager and deputy supported staff at all times.

The registered manager and deputy understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to enjoy a healthy, nutritious, balanced diet whilst promoting and respecting choice. Staff had a good awareness of people’s needs and treated them in a warm and respectful manner. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful.

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and personalised. Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals. People experienced a lifestyle which met their individual expectations, capacity and preferences.

Peoples, relatives and staff feedback was a vital part of the quality assurance system either through annual surveys, ‘residents’ meetings and care reviews. They were listened to and action was taken to make improvements to their quality of life. The registered manager monitored and audited the quality of care provided striving to meet the ever changing needs of people living in the home.

People shared with us their experiences about living in the home and we spoke with two people at length. Everyone expressed positive comments. We also looked at surveys that had been completed by people this year. These were by people that lived in the home, relatives, staff, and visiting health and social care professionals.

We spent time in various parts of the home, including communal areas, individual bedrooms and the gardens so that we could observe the direct care, attention and support that people who lived at the home received. There was a constant interaction between staff and people in the home. People were relaxed, happy and comfortable in each other's company.

It was a positive inspection and the provider was compliant in all six outcomes that we looked at.

There was positive interaction between staff and people in the home; everyone was relaxed, happy and comfortable in each other's company. We were introduced to people throughout the day and they welcomed us to their home. They talked freely with staff in front of us and people were confident and assertive in their surroundings.

People looked well and were happy when we visited. People were spending time in the lounge with visitors, some were enjoying the privacy of being in their own rooms and people were walking freely around parts of the home and the garden.

We spent time in various parts of the home, including communal areas and individual bedrooms so that we could observe the direct care, attention and support that people who lived at the home received.

Comments received from people in a recent survey included, 'The atmosphere, care and professionalism is an all round high standard', We really cannot suggest anything you could do better' and 'The care and understanding by the staff has always been excellent'.