Gateford Hill Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for the service under this provider. This key question has not been rated during this assessment.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 4 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not receive person-centred care in line with their needs and wishes. There was a lack of person-centred social activities and stimulation to meet people’s social needs. A person we spoke with told us they felt lonely. Another person said, “We do get a timetable each week but nothing that interests me.” We found not all people were offered the opportunity to participate in the activities on offer. For example, we observed the same 6 people doing the same activity in the morning and afternoon in 2 different areas of the home. On the day of the assessment no social opportunities were offered to people who remained in their bedroom. A person said, “Someone comes in to see me now and again as I’m stuck in bed.” Staff told us work was needed on the dementia unit to ensure people who lived there were provided with meaningful and engaging activities. We fed this back to the provider who took immediate action to improve the social opportunities for people living with dementia. Care plans were not person-centred and were not reflective of people’s choices or wishes. For example, a care plan we reviewed for a person who had resided at Gateford Hill for over 6 months was basic and lacked detail. The care plan did not detail the person’s likes and preferences, the social and end of life care plan did not provide staff with any information about their needs and wishes. Both care plans had been reviewed on at least 7 occasions, none of these reviews were meaningful. The death and dying care plan consisted of a list of medicines with no outcomes or care needs documented. This meant care was not individualised or person-centred.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.