You are here

Archived: Garswood House Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 July 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Garswood House on 16 June 2016.

The last inspection had been carried out on the 10 September 2014 and we did not identify any concerns with the care provided to people living at the home.

Garswood House is a large purpose built home on the outskirts of Ashton in Makerfield and is part of the Croftwood Care Group of homes. It is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide care and support for up to 40 older people. Services include a 10 bed specialist household for older people with dementia and a 30 bed residential unit. Day care and respite are also provided.

The home has three lounges, three smaller quiet sitting areas, a large sun terrace and a large dining room which is also used for various functions.

The home 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. On the day of the inspection the registered manager was on duty and the area manager was also present for some of the time.

Overall we found the home to be clean and tidy, although it was in need of some re-decoration. Both the registered manager and area manager were in agreement with this and plans were in place to carry out this work.

All the people we spoke to told us they felt safe, as did relatives we spoke with. We saw that the home had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place, with detailed instructions on how to report a safeguarding concern to all local authorities who have contracts with the home. Staff were all trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had a good knowledge of how to identify and report safeguarding or whistleblowing concerns.

Both the registered manager and staff we spoke to had knowledge and understanding of the mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is used when someone needs to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interest. We saw evidence that DoLS is utilised within the home.

We saw that staffing levels were determined by the needs of the residents, with a dependency tool being used each month to ensure levels remained safe and effective. We saw that the home has sufficient numbers of staff to meet residents needs and the residents agreed with this saying they were well looked after and supported.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff working at the home met the required standards. This involved everyone having a DBS (Disclosure and Baring Service) check, two references and full work history documented.

Staff reported that they received a good level of training to carry out their role and were encouraged and supported to attend more if required. We saw that all staff completed an induction training programme when they first started and that on-going training was provided to ensure skills and knowledge were up to date.

Staff also told us that they felt supported through completion of regular supervision meetings and yearly appraisals. Team meetings were also held for all levels of staff, which they were encouraged to attend and contribute towards.

We saw that the home had systems in place for the safe storage, administration and recording of medicines. Each resident kept their medication in a locked cabinet in their bedroom and only staff authorised to administer medicines were allowed access. All residents taking medicines had a medication administration record (MAR) in place. The home carried out medication audits monthly, and through these had identified some instances of medication not being signed as taken, during the inspection all records we observed were filled out correctly and all medicine amounts tallied.

Throughout the day we observed positive inter

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 July 2016

The service was safe.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were well trained in safeguarding procedures and aware of how to report concerns.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people and were regularly reviewed to ensure they remain so.

Staff had received training in medication to help ensure people received the correct medication at the right time.

Regular checks and monitoring was completed to ensure the all premises and equipment were safe, in good working order and fit for purpose.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 July 2016

The service was effective.

Staff reported receiving enough training to carry out their roles successfully and provided with regular support and supervision.

Care plans demonstrated people had been involved in their care and support needs and consent sought.

Referrals were made to medical and other professionals to ensure individual needs were being met.

All staff spoken to had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2015) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the application of these was evidenced in the care plans.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 July 2016

The service was caring.

All the people we spoke to were positive about the care and support they received, this was also reflected in the comments of relatives.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive interactions between staff and people. Staff members were friendly, kind and respectful and took time to listen to what the residents had to say.

People were able to make choices about their day such as when to get up, what to eat and how to spend their time. Staff had an understanding of the importance of promoting independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 July 2016

The service was responsive

Assessments of people�s needs were completed and care plans provided staff with the necessary information to help them support people in a person centred way.

The home had a complaints procedure in place, so that anyone could raise concerns. Action plans were clearly documented to show these had been acted upon.

Care plans and other records were regularly reviewed and signed off, with any changes circulated to the staff teams.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 July 2016

The service was well-led.

The home had a registered manager in place who had over 30 years� experience in care settings.

Audits and monitoring tools were in place and used regularly to assess the quality of the service.

Everyone we spoke to stated that the home was well managed and they felt supported.

Regular meetings were held with all members of the team, from care staff through to domestics, to ensure they have input into the running of the home and made aware of pertinent information.