You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 September 2018

The inspection took place on the 18,19 and 20 July 2018 and was unannounced.

Gatwick House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Gatwick House accommodates 14 people in one shared house and a number of individual units known as bungalows, each of which have separate adapted facilities. At the time of our inspection visit there were twelve people using the service.

At our previous inspection in September 2017 the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We found three breaches of regulation and took enforcement action. To support the provider to make the necessary improvements we imposed two conditions on their registration. The provider was required to undertake regular audits to monitor quality and risks in relation to the management of the service and staff, and support of people. They had to send a monthly report to CQC detailing the audit dates, the outcomes of these and any actions taken or to be taken as a result. The provider had complied with the conditions on their registration.

Following the last inspection, we also met with the provider to confirm what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of safe, effective, responsive and well-led to at least good. At this inspection we found the service had made and sustained the required improvements to meet the requirements of the regulations and was rated ‘Good’ overall.

At the time of our inspection Gatwick House 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.

The care 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.

We heard positive comments from people’s representatives about the care and support they received at Gatwick House such as, “I feel that they support each individual well and are very proactive in their approach to each person”, “We would like to, on record, thank the staff at Gatwick House for their hard work and patience with (the person), the staff do a great job!” and “(The person) has never had as good a placement as this”.

We found improvements to the investigation of incidents, guidance on how to support people at risk of choking and the recording and auditing of the support people were given to take their medicines. We found the environment of the care home was clean and had been well maintained. Improvements had been put in place to ensure thorough checks were made when recruiting staff.

We also found improved training and supervision for staff to enable them to effectively support people at Gatwick House. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness; their privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported to develop their independence and keep in contact with relatives. People were enabled to be actively involved in the planning and review of their care and support.

Detailed records enabled staff to have the right information to support people. People were supported to take part in a range of activities. Concerns and complaints were investigated and improvements made to the service.

Quality monitoring systems had improved with the introducti

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 September 2018

The safety of the service had improved and the service was safe.

There were improvements to the investigation of incidents, guidance on how to support people at risk of choking and the recording and auditing of the support people were given to take their medicines.

All staff had received training to enable them to identify potential abuse.

Improvements had been put in place to ensure thorough checks were made when recruiting staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 September 2018

The effectiveness of the service had improved and the service was effective.

There were improvements to staff training, supervision and appraisal.

People's meal preferences were known and they were supported to eat a varied diet in response to their needs.

People's health needs were met through on-going support and liaison with relevant healthcare professionals.

People's ability to make decisions and consent to care was protected by the correct use of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported with kindness and respect.

The service ensured people and their representatives were enabled to be at the centre of regular reviews of their care and support.

People's privacy, dignity and independence was understood and respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 September 2018

The responsiveness of the service had improved and the service was responsive.

There were improvements to records relating to people�s support.

Increased staff training had improved how incidents were responded to.

People were enabled to engage in suitable activities of their choice.

There were arrangements to respond to any concerns and

complaints by people using the service or their representatives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 September 2018

The leadership of the service had improved and the service was well-led.

Effective systems or processes were now in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety in the service.

A system was in place to ensure required notifications were sent to CQC.