• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Gorselands Court Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Aigburth Vale, Liverpool, Merseyside, L17 0DG (0151) 726 1771

Provided and run by:
Gorselands Court Limited

All Inspections

7 January 2019

During a routine inspection

This comprehensive inspection took place on 07 January 2019 and was unannounced.

The service had a registered manager. 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 last inspection of the service was carried out in January 2018 and during that inspection we found a breach of Regulation 17 relating to the governance of the service. Systems for monitoring, checking and improving the quality of the service were not robust enough to identify some of the areas that required improvement that we noted during our inspection. At this inspection we found that improvements to systems of monitoring had been implemented to ensure the health and safety and wellbeing of the people living there.

This service provides care to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care service. People using the service lived in ordinary flats within a retirement complex.

Not everyone using Gorselands Court Limited receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection there were two people receiving care and support.

The registered manager and five deputy managers had systems for reviewing, monitoring and assessing the quality of the service. The provider was undertaking their own internal audits of the records, therefore they were able to demonstrate how they monitored and identified any shortfalls. There was a plan to collate all information gathered and to take action to drive improvements.

The registered manager had ensured that staff received regular support, training and supervision and had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs. Training materials were up to date and reflected current good practice guidelines and legislation.

People received their medicines on time and the information available to staff about people's medicines was up to date. There were risk assessments in place so that staff had the guidance they needed to ensure people received their medicines safely. People's risk assessments were in place and had been updated and reviewed to reflect changes in their needs.

Care records were informative and up-to-date. Each person using the service had a personalised care and support plan and a risk assessment. All records we saw were complete, up to date and regularly reviewed. We found that people and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support.

We found that recruitment practices were in place which included the completion of pre-employment checks prior to a new member of staff working at the service and disciplinary procedures had been followed appropriately and in accordance with policies.

Staff received an induction programme, regular training and supervision to enable them to work safely and effectively. There was also an up to date staff handbook that all staff were given and staff were informed when there were any updates.

People's GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice about people’s health needs whenever necessary and when people requested their support.

The provider had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. We saw there were policies and procedures in place and training to guide staff in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults.

The service had quality assurance processes in place including service user questionnaires. The service’s policies and procedures had been reviewed in 2017 and information shared by the registered manager told us the provider was updating them again in January 2019. The policies included health and safety, confidentiality, mental capacity, medication, whistle blowing, safeguarding and recruitment.

People told us they were happy with the staff and felt that the staff understood their care and support needs. The two people we spoke with had no complaints about the service. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and this was available in the ‘Service User Guide’.

19 December 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 19 December 2017 and 04 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care (ASC) inspector.

This service provides care to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care service. People using the service lived in ordinary flats within a retirement complex.

Not everyone using Gorselands Court Limited receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The last inspection of the service was carried out in August 2016 and during that inspection we found breaches of regulations in respect of staff training and supervision and recruitment procedures. Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe, effective, and well-led to at least good.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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.

Improvements had been made to the recruitment information obtained and retained by the provider in respect of staff. This meant that the information was now available to check staff identification and to carry out checks to help ensure they were suitable to support people who may be vulnerable.

Improvements had also been made to the processes for inducting, supervising and training staff. A system had been put into place for all staff to receive their annual appraisal and for formal supervision to take place.

We found a breach relating to governance of the service. Systems for monitoring, checking and improving the quality of the service where not robust enough to identify some of the areas that required improvement that we noted during our inspection.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff had not always received the training required to administer prescribed creams nor were policies or care plans available to provide guidance for staff to follow when administering prescribed creams. People did receive prompting to take other medication as described within their plan.

Policies were in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults, and staff were aware of these.

Information about how to raise a complaint was readily available and a relative told us they would be confident to raise any concerns they had.

People received their care on time and from staff who were unhurried and able to meet their needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people and had received training in how to carry out their roles effectively. Further training was planned to ensure staff remained up to date and to deal with people’s changing needs.

Staff were aware of people’s health care needs and had responded appropriately when people required support to meet these.

Staff spoke warmly about people and gave good examples of how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity. They were aware of how to support people to make every day decisions and how to communicate with people in a way the person could understand.

Daily care records were comprehensive and showed people had received their care as they required. However care plans did not always contain sufficient information to guide unfamiliar staff on how to support people safely.

The registered manager knew people well and was able to verbally explain the care and support people required. Systems for checking the quality and safety of the service were not robust and not always followed by staff. This meant that areas of concern were not always identified and acted upon quickly.

4 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We visited Gorselands Court Limited on the 4 August 2016. The type of service provided is extra care housing provided within a private retirement complex. People are provided with a range of hours of support per day or per week in line with their assessed needs. The share holders are people who reside within the complex and they select a Board of Directors. At the time of our visit, the service was providing four people with domiciliary care services. There were 12 care/ housekeeping staff with five housekeeping managers employed to provide this service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

At this inspection we found breaches relating to the recruitment procedures and training and induction programme for staff. These arrangements were not robust enough to ensure that staff were safely recruited and then trained. . You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

There was a safeguarding policy in place and care/housekeeping staff were aware of the safeguarding procedure in relation to safeguarding adults and all were aware of the need to inform the manager or office manager immediately. The management team were not fully aware of the procedure to follow if an incident occurred.

Staff knew what to do if any difficulties arose whilst supporting somebody, or if an accident happened. Incidents and accidents were recorded and learned from.

The opinions of people who spoke with us were that the service was really good. People told us they were very happy with the staff and felt that the staff understood their care needs. People confirmed that staff stayed for the length of time allocated. People confirmed that calls were never missed and that an on-call system was always available. All of the people we spoke with had no complaints about the service.

The staff employed by Gorselands Court Limited knew the people they were supporting and the care they needed. People who used the domiciliary service and staff told us that Gorselands Court Limited was well led and staff told us that they felt well supported in their roles. We saw that the registered manager had a visible presence and it was obvious that they knew the people who they supported really well.

15 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support they received. People said staff had always been respectful towards them and protected their privacy and dignity.

We found that people were involved in decisions about the service and the service was centred around people's individual needs. People told us they had been asked what support they required and how they wanted this to be provided and that the service they received was as they had requested.

Each person who used the service had an individualised care plan. People had been involved in reviewing and updating their care plan on a regular basis.

We found that staff were supporting the aims and objectives of the service in encouraging people to make choices and to use their independent living skills.

Appropriate procedures were in place with regards to the administration and recording of medication and staff felt sufficiently trained and skilled to support people with managing their medication.

Checks had been carried out on staff before they started working at the service. These aimed to ensure people were supported by staff who had the appropriate skills, experience and qualities they needed to carry out their roles.

The provider had a system in place for monitoring the quality of the service and this included asking people who used the service for their views.

17 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us they had made decisions about the care and support they were receiving and were consulted with in the development of their care plans.

People said they were happy with the care and support they were receiving from the service. They told us staff were respectful towards them and protected their privacy and dignity.

People told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had about the service.

People gave us positive feedback about care staff who are referred to as 'house keepers'. Comments included 'The staff are good, very polite and always punctual' and 'We have the same staff and they're very good."

People told us they had support from the same small group of staff who they knew and who knew their needs well.