We carried out an inspection of Gorse Hill on 3 and 6 July 2015. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
Gorse Hill provides accommodation and personal care for up to ten people with a learning disability. The home is set in its own grounds and is located near to local amenities. All accommodation is single occupancy, with some rooms taking the form of a small flat, with kitchen, living and bathroom areas. All bedrooms have an ensuite bathroom. At the time of the inspection there were nine people accommodated in the home.
The service 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.
At the last inspection on 19 and 20 January 2015 we asked the provider to ensure appropriate action was taken following a safeguarding incident and ensure the commission was notified in a timely manner. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan which set out the action they had taken to ensure the regulations were met. On this inspection we found the necessary improvements had been made.
As Gorse Hill is registered as a care home, CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had access to appropriate policies and procedures. However, on arrival at the service we noted one person was walking down the road and was persuaded back by the registered manager. We noted a mental capacity assessment had not been carried out to determine if the person was able to go out safely on their own. We further noted a DoLS application had not been made which meant the person was deprived of their liberty without proper authority. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People told us they felt safe and were well cared for in the home. Staff knew about safeguarding procedures and we saw concerns had been dealt with appropriately, which helped to keep people safe.
We noted there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to support people safely and ensure that people’s needs were met appropriately.
Systems and processes were in place to ensure the administration, storage, disposal and handling of medicines was safe.
We found relevant checks had been completed before a member of staff started to work in the home. From the records seen and discussions with staff we also noted staff had completed relevant training for their role and they were well supported by the registered manager.
Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink.
All people had a detailed care plan which covered their needs and any personal preferences. People were given the opportunity to discuss their care at monthly keyworker meetings.
People were able to participate in a variety of activities both inside and outside the home. We noted staff were allocated specific time on the rota to enable them to spend individual time with people.
Staff understood the needs of people and we saw that care was provided with kindness and compassion. People spoke positively about the home and the care they received.
People and their relatives told us they knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern. There were systems in place for responding to complaints.
We saw there was a system of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service. People and staff were given opportunities to express their views and provide feedback on the service.