You are here

RNID Action on Hearing Loss Gallaudet Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 January 2019

We undertook an inspection at Gallaudet Home on 11 and 13 December 2018. The first day was unannounced. The last inspection of the service was carried out in October and November 2017. At that time, we identified several breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and rated the service ‘requires improvement’. Shortfalls related to training and supervision, people’s involvement in developing care plans and risk assessments, the implementation of actions identified in audits, and people’s feedback about the service.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve in specific areas. At this inspection we rated the service ‘good’ because we found the necessary improvements had been made, and further improvement work was ongoing.

Gallaudet Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Gallaudet provides care for up to eight people. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living there. The service is in a long, single storied building which is accessible to people in wheelchairs or with limited mobility. Communal areas included a lounge, dining area and kitchen. Bedrooms were all accessible from the main corridor, and some were en suite.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A manager was going through the process of registering with CQC at the time of our inspection. Their registration was completed shortly after our inspection. A registered manager has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems and processes were in place to protect people from harm, and staff had received training in safeguarding. They knew what they must to do protect people and the provider had made safeguarding referrals to the local authority appropriately.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were safe, including risk management, checks on the environment and safe fire management processes.

Risk assessments relating to people who used the service were clear and described potential hazards and control measures in place. These gave staff information about how to support people safely and ensure risks were managed effectively.

People were supported by adequate numbers of staff to meet their needs, although regular agency staff supported shortfalls in staffing numbers. Recruitment was ongoing, and the provider followed safe procedures to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the service.

People's medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely. Medicines administration records were accurate and clear. Some staff required updates in medicines competency checks. We have made a recommendation about the storage of controlled drugs.

Staff were trained in a range of relevant subjects, although some training and records required updating. Staff usually received regular supervision and appraisals, and the staff we spoke with felt supported.

People were supported to have choice and control in their lives. Their privacy and dignity was respected and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives told us that they were consulted and informed about people’s care. Records were clear and reflected people's needs and preferences.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences, and we

Inspection areas



Updated 11 January 2019

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff, systems and processes which kept them safe.

People�s medicines were mostly managed safely.

Risks to people were assessed and monitored to ensure people were safe.



Updated 11 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff received training and supervision to ensure they provided effective care for people. There were some gaps in training compliance, but the provider had a plan to address these.

Staff supported people's choices and the service followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.



Updated 11 January 2019

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were confident in the abilities of staff, and told us that they were kind and patient.

Staff had a good understanding of people�s needs and preferences, and were compassionate and caring.



Updated 11 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and were supported to make choices about their care.

Care records were clear and involved people where possible. Some care plans were being updated.

People and their relatives felt able to give feedback or make complaints. They were confident that their concerns would be fully investigated.



Updated 11 January 2019

The service was well led.

Systems to monitor and review safety and the quality of care were in place. Shortfalls were identified and actions taken. Steps had recently been taken to make sure routine checks were always completed consistently.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the recent changes to the service and the new registered manager.