You are here

Garland House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 February 2020

About the service

Garland House is a residential care home providing personal care to 18 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 20 people.

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

We found improvements were required to the way in which people’s medicines were managed because storage area temperatures were not monitored, and stocks of people’s medicines could not always be accurately checked to ensure they were correct. Improvements were also required to the provider’s systems for monitoring service quality and safety because medicines audits were not robust in identifying these issues.

We have made a recommendation about the use of nationally recognised assessment tools when assessing people’s needs.

People told us they were happy living at the home and that they received high quality support. They were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the action to take if they suspected someone had been abused. Risks to people had been assessed and staff followed the guidance in people’s care plans in order to safely manage identified risks. Staff also worked in ways that minimised the risk of the spread of infection.

The home had enough staff working on each shift to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices. Staff knew to report incidents or accidents that occurred and the registered manager reviewed incident and accident records for learning, to reduce the risk of repeat occurrence. Staff were supported in their roles through an induction, training and regular supervision. The home had been adapted to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and told us they enjoyed the food on offer at the home. They were able to access to a range of healthcare services where needed and staff worked to ensure they received consistent support when moving between different services. Staff sought people’s consent when offering them support. 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.

Staff treated people with care and compassion. They respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity. People were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about the support they received. They had also been involved in the planning of their care and told us that staff supported them in line with their expressed preferences. The provider arranged activities for people to take part in which they told us they enjoyed. People knew how to complain and expressed confidence that any issues they raised would be addressed.

Staff spoke positively about the way they worked together and told us they were well supported by the registered manager. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the responsibility of their role. They sought feedback from people and their relatives on the service they provided, and this feedback had been positive.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published 16 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 20 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 20 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 20 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 20 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 20 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.