• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Gardner House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brierton Lane, Hartlepool, Cleveland, TS25 4AG (01429) 261023

Provided and run by:
Community Integrated Care

All Inspections

27 and 28 November 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 27 and 28 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. We last inspected 21 October 2013. At that inspection we found the home was meeting all the regulations that we inspected.

Gardner House provides residential care for up to 29 people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

The home had 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.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. One person said, “It’s nice to know that other people are about to look after me.” Another person told us, “I used to be frightened being alone in my own house, but not now.” One relative told us, “The staff do everything they can to take care of [family member] and make sure that they are safe here. I could not think of any reason to think they were not safe.”

People lived in clean and tidy accommodation and the service worked with the infection control lead for the area to maintain this.

Staff at the home were trained to administer medicines to people safely and securely. People told us they received their medicine on time and no issues were reported to us.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures. They also knew how to report any concerns they had and would not be frightened to do that. The provider had procedures in place to monitor and investigate safeguarding concerns.

Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make decision. The registered manager had also made DoLS applications to the local authority when that was required.

Staff had a good understanding of how to manage people’s behaviours that challenged the service and had individualised strategies to help them manage people’s behaviours that challenge.  

People who used the service, relatives and staff all told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough trained staff were available to meet people’s needs. The provider had systems in place for the recruitment of all staff at the home, including suitability for the post, full history, references and security checks.

The registered manager had a programme of staff training in place and monitored this to ensure that all staff were kept up to date with training needs.

The provider employed a maintenance person who completed regular checks on the building to ensure people’s safety. The provider also had emergency procedures in place for staff to follow and staff knew how to access this information and how to use it.

People told us they enjoyed the food that was prepared for them at the home. One person said, “You cannot please everyone all the time, but I am very happy with what I get to eat.” One relative we spoke with told us, “The food always looks nice.” Another relative told us, “Staff often ask if we want to stay for meals, they are very good.” We found that people received nutritious meals and refreshments throughout the day.

Where people needed support, this was given by carers who received consent before beginning any activity with the person. People were respected and treated with dignity, compassion, warmth and kindness and every person that we spoke with highlighted the quality of care provided by staff at the home. One relative told us, “The care is exceptional.” We saw lots of laughing by people and staff during our inspection.

People were treated as individuals and monitored so that any changes in their needs were identified and measures put in place to address that change. Care records were regularly reviewed and discussed with the person and their relatives.

Gardner House had been awarded the Gold Standard Framework for end of life care, and one relative told us, “The staff were exemplary and could not have done anything more for my relative.”  The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) for end of life care is an accredited national training programme originally set up by the NHS. The national GSF Centre awards certificates to care homes who have completed the training programme.  

People had choice. We saw individual personal items decorating people’s bedrooms and people choosing to have meals in other parts of the home, other than the dining room.

We saw activities taking place at the home. One relative told us that a number of staff had fundraised to provide various activities and other items for the people who lived at the home. They told us, “If there is something that the residents need, the staff hold events or raise money in all sorts of ways.”

There had been no complaints at the home since 2013, but the manager had dealt with previous complaints effectively. We saw that there was a complaints procedure on display for everyone to see and people and their relatives were aware of what to do if they needed to share a concern or complaint.

People and their relatives were able to give feedback to the registered manager and staff through meetings and also surveys that were carried out.  People and residents told us that staff were open to discussion and acted upon items that needed to be addressed.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service provided by completing a number of audits (or checks) within the home. When issues were identified, we saw that measures had been taken and outcomes recorded. We also saw that the service was monitored by the regional manager who visited regularly and completed their own internal checks.

We were told by a community nurse of occasions where people with bed sores had been well cared for and the wound had healed. We also saw evidence of partnership working with external providers and healthcare professionals for the benefit of people living at Gardner House.

21 October 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, two relatives and one visitor. We also spoke with the manager and care staff. People and relatives told us that they were happy with the care and service received. People we spoke with told us, "The staff are lovely," and "The staff are good, they meet my needs."

We spoke with staff and found that they were very knowledgeable about people’s likes and dislikes and how they wished to be supported. We were able to see how people’s abilities and independence were promoted. We observed staff interactions with people using the service and saw that care was delivered in a supportive way which promoted people's independence. We found that care was delivered in line with people's assessed needs; however care records were not always completed.

We saw that care records contained evidence to confirm that health professionals had been involved with people's care. This meant people's health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment.

We could see that there were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people living in the home.

We found that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

People’s personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed.

8 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service. They told us they were treated well, the staff were very good and they had no complaints about the home. One person said 'They are all very nice people', and 'I am very satisfied with the care provided.' Another person told us 'I am happy with how I am treated; I can do what I want, when I want.'

We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service. One relative told us, 'The communication is good; I get updated on any issues.' Another relative told us, 'Very satisfied with the home, I visit every day and made to feel welcome.'

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect. We saw there was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere between people living and working at the home. We observed staff interacting well with people and supporting them which had a positive impact on their wellbeing.

We found the premises that people, staff and visitors used were safe and suitable and that people were cared for and supported by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We also found that staff were appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities which enabled them to deliver care safely and to appropriate standards.

We found there was an effective complaints system in place at the home.

17 February 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit, we spoke with five people who used the service and three relatives. People were happy about the service they received and were complimentary about the staff. One person said, "The staff are lovely." Another person said, "The staff are great and the food is good." A relative told us "I come in every day. My mother is well taken care of."

We spent a period of time sitting with a group of people in a lounge. We were able to observe people's experiences of living in the home and their interactions with each other and the staff. Throughout the observation, we saw all staff treat people with respect and courtesy.