Archived: Gabriel Court Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care delivery did not always align with what people’s care plans set out and records of care did not always reflect that people had received care that met their needs. However, care plans contained person-centred information for staff guidance, including likes dislikes hobbies and life history. People and their relatives told us that staff knew them well. People were choosing how to spend their time in the home and this was supported by staff. A relative told us, “They [staff] are lovely and they do try to make the best of all residents. They know them well and if somebody is having bad day they sit and try to help. My relative loves all their attention.” Staff told us that care plans reflected people’s individual needs and person-centred information obtained for care plans was sourced directly from people or their families.

The provider had not always worked well with partner agencies to ensure the agreed and contracted quality of care was met. Where improvements were made, they were not always sustained, creating a yo-yo effect on the quality and continuity of care provided.

People were supported by a regular team of staff that knew them well. The provider had retained a registered manager that had built positive relationships with people and their families. The provider consistently used the same chiropodist at the home who had got to know people well. We observed them supporting people’s preference of where they would like to be treated.

The provider met the requirements of the accessible information standard. They supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. One person had a specific communication system that was tailored to them, we observed that this effectively aided their communication. Staff knew people well and were able to assist with communication where required.

People’s records were stored appropriately and securely.

Not everyone felt listened to. One person told us they attended the residents’ meetings and always raised the same issue; they told us no changes were made. Resident meetings reflected that people were generally not positive about the food, this did not appear to be listened to as the only action recorded was that they would observe people at mealtimes. The issue therefore had continued.

Another person told us their independence was important to them, they told us they don’t have strength in their grip anymore. We observed them struggling with both the cutlery and the cup they were provided with at lunchtime. We advised the registered manager who had been unaware and not informed of the issue despite staff observing people at lunchtime.

One person had listed specific foods in their care plan that they did not like and a specific way they would like their food to be presented. Staff had not listened to this and on both assessment site visit days the person was given food they did not like and food that was not presented as requested. They described the food to us as inedible. We raised this with the home manager who had additional information about this person’s needs and how to support them, however, this had not been shared in the care plan for staff guidance.

Relatives were not satisfied with communication they received from the management team. One relative said, “There’s not a lot of communication from the management.” Another relative told us they had sent an e-mail to the home over a week ago and had not received a response. A relative told us they had been asked for their e-mail address in a demanding manner by a member of staff but had not received any correspondence. They told us that they had received the news of the homes closure via the local authority.

A relative told us they and another relative were involved in care planning on their relative’s behalf. Staff also told us that information for care planning was sought from people and their relatives.

Staff and leaders ensured people could access health care services as and when needed. The registered manager told us they had difficulty ensuring people received regular dental checks due to the wider issue of a lack of available places in dental practices locally.

People received equal access to care regardless of their protected characteristics. The home was adapted to ensure people had equal access around it and to use communal areas. Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and the provider had a policy and procedure for staff guidance.

Staff and leaders made sure that all residents were treated fairly, no matter their background or personal needs. Staff had guidance in care plans on each person’s preferences, including their culture, religion, and how they like to communicate. There was some work to do on making sure everyone felt listened to but people were included in daily life at the home.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People were supported with end of life care including person-centred care planning and consultation with the GP to ensure anticipatory medicines were in place to support people at the end of their life. Where people were not for resuscitation this had been recorded clearly for staff information to ensure peoples wishes or best interests were met.