Archived: Gorton Parks Care Home

Gorton Parks Nursing and Residential Home was last inspected in July 2014 when we identified four breaches of the regulations we reviewed; these related to guidelines for managing challenging behaviour, lack of stimulation for people living with dementia, acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and having effective quality audit systems in place for the service.

Following the inspection in July 2014 the provider wrote to us to tell us the action they intended to take to ensure they met all the relevant regulations. Part of this inspection was undertaken to check whether the required improvements had been made. We found improvements in all four areas.

Gorton Parks Nursing and Residential Home is owned by BUPA Care Homes. The service consists of four 30 bedded units Melland House, Abbey Hey, Sunnybrow and Debdale. Part of the Debdale unit and a fifth unit on the same site are contracted to the NHS for re-ablement services for people discharged from hospital. They were not part of this inspection; being inspected by the CQC hospitals directorate. Each unit specialises in either nursing or residential care. Each unit has a lounge, dining area, a conservatory, a smoke room and a kitchenette. All bedrooms are single with no en-suite facilities. Accessible toilets and bathrooms are located near to bedrooms and living rooms.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe in the service and had no concerns about the care and support they received. They told us staff were always kind and caring. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew the correct action to take if they witnessed or suspected abuse. Staff were confident that the unit managers, clinical lead and registered manager would act on any concerns raised.

We noted improvements had been made to the risk management and behaviour management plans. However we found that behaviour management plans were not completed in the care plans we looked at on one of the units.

A process was in place to recruit suitable staff; however records of staff recruitment did not fully evidence that the people who used the service were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff being recruited. We found the reasons for gaps in three people’s employment history had not been recorded. The registered manager told us they would add this as a question for candidates at their interview. Care staff received the induction, training and supervision they required to be able to deliver effective care We saw, and were told, that the staffing levels were sufficient on each unit for staff to respond to people’s requests for support in a timely manner. Additional staff were being recruited to cover for staff on annual leave or training and reduce the need for the use of agency staff.

We saw that medicines were managed safely throughout the service. People told us that they received their medicines as prescribed. Protocols were in place to guide staff as to when ‘as required’ medicines were to be administered. More detail was required in the protocols on two units to clearly describe how staff would recognise the signs that the person was becoming agitated and required an ‘as required’ medicine to be administered.

All areas of the home were clean. Procedures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection. Systems were in place to deal with any emergency that could affect the provision of care, such as a failure of the electricity and gas supply. Regular checks were in place of fire systems and equipment. We found that some checks had not been completed in early 2016 due to the recruitment of a new maintenance person. We were assured the outstanding checks would be completed by May 2016.

People told us they always received the care they needed. Care records we reviewed showed that risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified and plans were in place to help reduce or eliminate the risk. Care records had been regularly reviewed to help ensure they accurately reflected people’s needs.

Systems were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met. Records we reviewed showed that staff were proactive in contacting relevant health professionals to ensure people received the care and treatment they required.

We noted that improvements had been made for assessing whether people were able to consent to their care and treatment. The manager was aware of the action to take to ensure any restrictions in place were legally authorised under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). However we found that best interest decision forms had not been consistently completed in all the units.

A programme of activities was in place to help promote the well-being of people who used the service. Records we reviewed showed people were supported to access activities on both a group and individual basis. Additional activity officers had been recruited since our last inspection. We saw that two of the three activities officers had been off work for an extended time. Activities had reduced during this period.

The service had an advanced care planning process in place to support people at the end of their lives. We were told by a visiting GP the end of life support people received was excellent, with people being able to be supported within the service, rather than be admitted to hospital, if they chose to. Close relations had been built with the GP practice; the home is in the process of registering 48 people with nursing needs with the practice.

There were effective systems in place to investigate and respond to any complaints received by the service. All the people we spoke with told us they would feel confident to raise any concerns they might have with the manager.

We noted there were a number of quality audits in the service; these included medicines, care records and the environment. Action plans were completed following the audits. Monthly statistics were compiled for monitoring purposes on a range of areas; for example nutrition, safeguarding referrals and hospital admissions.

This was a follow-up inspection. At the previous inspection in July 2013 we found that the service needed to improve the way in which medication was stored because medication was being stored at temperatures above manufacturers recommendation.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and so the wellbeing of people who used the service was protected because medication was stored at the correct temperature.

We visited the majority of people on each of the units and spent time talking with at least three people who used the service on each unit. We also talked with a number of relatives on two of the units. We were told: 'They're very nice to me the mannerisms are good.'

'The staff are ok.'

And:

'I'm happy here, I couldn't say anything else.'

Relatives of people who used the service felt Gorton Parks was a safe place. We were told: 'We love it here.'

'Yes (my relative) is safe, it was a big consideration.'

And:

'I just think it's pleasant, it's light and airy and doesn't smell.'

We found that people who lived on the different units at Gorton Parks nursing and residential home had their needs met in keeping with their wishes, and so their physical, social, and emotional wellbeing was promoted.

We found that the provider needed to safeguard people more in respect of making sure medication was stored at the correct temperature.

At the previous inspection visit on 19 November 2012 we saw gaps in relation to staff recruitment practices and at this inspection on 10 June 2013 we saw the information available about staff recruitment had improved.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of their service provision.

People using the service told us they were happy with the overall service provided at Gorton Parks. People told us: 'I'm alright here. I've not had any concerns but would tell my daughter.' And a relative told us: 'Everyone has been kind and caring and he looks very well indeed.'

People using the service told us they felt safe and health care provision was effective. Comments included 'I think it's great here and I've had different treatments since I've been in.'

People using the service liked the food and said there was choice and the food was plentiful.

We found staff employed at Gorton Parks to be well managed; however, the provider may wish to consider changes in the management of staff recruitment records.

Overall we found people living on the different units at Gorton Parks nursing and residential home had their needs met in a manner which preserved their dignity and promoted their physical, social, and emotional wellbeing.