You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 August 2018

Gordon House is a purpose built residential care service providing accommodation and nursing care for 20 people. The service provides rehabilitative care for people with severe and enduring mental health illnesses. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people using the service. The service was situated near to local amenities and had a well-maintained enclosed garden to the rear.

Gordon House is a ‘care home’. People in ‘care homes’ receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 9 July 2018. The last inspection was in June 2015 when the service was rated as ‘Good’.

The service had a manager in post who had made an application to CQC to become registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We found that staff’s suitability to work with vulnerable adults at the service had been checked prior to employment. For instance, previous employer references had been sought and a criminal conviction check undertaken.

Staff had received training which equipped them with the knowledge and skills to ensure people received adequate care. Staff had also received more specific training to meet the needs of people living with mental health illnesses.

Medication was managed safely and was administered by staff who were adequately trained. People who wished to self-medicate were supported by staff to do so safely, this helped to promote their independence.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for checking the environment was safe. For example, health and safety audits were completed on a regular basis and accidents and incidents were reported and recorded appropriately.

Care records contained detailed information to identify people’s requirements and preferences in relation to their care. People we spoke with told us that they had a choice in how they lived their lives at the service.

Quality assurance processes were in place to seek the views of people using the service and their relatives.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people consented to the care they received. The MCA is legislation which protects the powers of people to make their own decisions.

People were involved in their care and there was evidence in their care records to show that they had been consulted about decisions. People’s hobbies and interests were recorded and catered for. For example, one person enjoyed horse riding and the home had supported him with visits to the stables.

A ‘community connections worker’ was employed by the service to support people take part in activities in the local community. For example, people were supported with attending health care appointments, this helped to promote people’s wellbeing. Some people were also supported with further education and attended computer courses.

We asked people about how they thought the service was managed and their feedback was positive.

Inspection areas



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was safe.

Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff on duty to ensure people�s needs were met.

People�s medicines where ordered, stored and administered in line with good practice and by staff that had received training.

The premises were safe and well maintained.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supported to do their job role through training and supervision.

Staff had knowledge of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported with their dietary needs.

People were supported to access external heath care services to promote their well-being.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect.

People had a choice regarding how they spent their day and were supported in engaging in their preferred activities.

People�s personal information was stored securely to maintain confidentiality.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People were actively involved in decisions around their care.

There was a complaints procedure in place and any complaints received were responded to appropriately.

Systems were in place to gather feedback from people who lived at the service



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was well led.

Audits were carried out to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Feedback regarding the management of the service was positive.

The manager knew the service well and was committed to continuous improvement.