We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ganwick House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ganwick House, you can give feedback on this service.
Ganwick House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to seven people at the time of the inspection. The service specialises in the care and support of people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or mental health conditions. The service can support up to eight people.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to eight people. Seven people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs outside to indicate it was a care home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns they may have. Risks to people’s safety and well-being had been identified and assessed. Staff knew the action they should take and followed the guidance provided to them.
Staff told us there were enough staff on duty and our observations confirmed they were able to meet people’s needs and spend meaningful time with people. Staff were recruited safely and received a comprehensive induction and training to provide them with the skills required for their roles.
Medicines were stored and managed safely. The registered manager monitored any accidents and incidents and lessons learnt were shared with staff.
Personalised care plans were in place. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting and knew what was important to each individual. People’s health and wellbeing was monitored, and staff supported them to access healthcare services, when required.
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.
There was a robust system in place to gather feedback from people, relatives and professionals. No formal complaints had been raised at the service; however, there was a procedure in place should any concerns be raised.
There was a positive, open culture at the service. The quality assurance system in place provided the registered manager with a detailed overview of service quality and where improvements needed to be made.
Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and their dedication to people and staff. It was clear that all staff were committed to delivering a quality service.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 21 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Safe and effective recruitment practices were not consistently followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced. Arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available at all times to meet people’s individual needs.
Trained staff helped people to take their medicines at the right time. Identified and potential risks to people’s health and well-being were reviewed. However audits had not identified a medicine error that had occurred.
People felt safe, happy and well looked after at the home. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns, both internally and externally
Staff obtained people’s consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way.
Plans and guidance had been drawn up to help staff deal with unforeseen events and emergencies. The environment and equipment used were regularly checked and well maintained to keep people safe.
People were supported by staff that were sufficiently trained and felt supported. The service worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received a varied and balanced diet and had regular access to health and social care professionals.
People were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in planning their care and their choices and preferences were promoted. Records were stored securely.
People received care that met their needs and their care plans were detailed and person centred. Activities and opportunities for engagement were provided. People knew how to make a complaint but there had not been any recent complaints.
People, their relatives and staff were positive about the management team. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.
This inspection took place on 16 June 2015 and was unannounced.
Ganwick House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. The service supports people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder or mental health issues. There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The provider used safe recruitment practices. Staff had inductions and were supported by colleagues whilst developing skills. Supervisions and appraisals were completed and staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse.
Staff received regular training and knew how to meet people’s individual needs. Any changes in people’s needs were communicated to all staff when they started their shifts.
Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff also understood the importance of giving people as much choice and freedom as possible. The manager had made appropriate applications for DoLS in order to keep people safe. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and where people lacked capacity we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests.
People had appropriate food and drink and staff had access to accurate and up to date information to help them meet people’s dietary needs. There was enough staff to assist people who required support during meal times.
There were planned weekly activities and people were supported to be independent where possible.
Staff were kind and people appreciated the positive relationships they had with staff. This was also true for relatives. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and all confidential information about them was held securely. People told us they were happy living at the home.
People’s care plans were personalised and included information about their life history and interests. People’s individual needs were assessed and staff were knowledgeable about how to meet people’s specific needs.
The service was well led by a manager who promoted a fair and open culture. They encouraged staff to take responsibility. The manager had a support structure in place from other managers. There was a management system in place to help them monitor the quality of the service.
We observed that people were relaxed in the home and were able to pursue their own interests through their own personal planned activity programmes. People were able to attend the day centre located behind the main house where they enjoyed activities such as playing the keyboard, playing computer games, making puzzles and building with plastic bricks. People attended college throughout the week to pursue specific interests such as music recording , art and drama.
We identified positive interaction between staff and people who encouraged and supported people to help with the day to day running of the house such as cleaning the rooms, laundry and going to the supermarket to buy the food for the home.
We identified that there were appropriate systems in place to provide care to each person's individual needs in a way that people maintained their independence.
We observed a clean and well maintained environment with bright modern furnishings. People were able to personalise their own rooms with items of interest, importance and memory.
All staff had received appropriate training required to provide safe and effective support.
We observed that there was a relaxed, calm atmosphere throughout the time of our visit. People were following their planned activity programmes with staff as well as being encouraged to follow their own interests. Some people had gone out for a drive, one person was engrossed in a drawing they were doing and another person had been spending time with their key worker developing their keyboard skills. People indicated they were busy and we saw photographs of people participating in the various activities and groups provided.
People indicated they were happy with the arrangements for them at Ganwick House and showed us how they were involved in looking after their rooms and managing their own laundry. People were being involved in the daily activities of setting tables and loading the dishwasher.
We observed that people had been provided with bright modern furnishings and had been able to personalise their rooms with many items of interest, importance and memory. This demonstrated that despite the challenges faced by some people they were able to live in a dignified environment that they were taking care of.