Archived: Gattison House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service was accessing the government testing scheme which had assisted them to identify an outbreak quickly. The service worked with the local authority infection, prevention and control (IPC) team and other health professionals in managing the outbreak.

The home was clean and had regular cleaning regimes in place. Clear infection prevention signs reminded everyone at the point of entry and throughout the home about procedures for infection control.

Clear communication with staff reinforced hygiene practices, such as shift handovers and daily meetings.

Hand sanitising points were readily accessible throughout the home and staff used these frequently.

Staff ensured people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends.

Appropriate risk assessments were carried out to assess the impact of COVID- 19 on people and staff.

People isolating in their rooms had regular contact with staff who wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. Staff told us they had a plentiful supply of PPE.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

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.

Gattison House is a care home situated in Rossington, Doncaster which is registered to accommodate up to 36 people. The service is provided by Runwood Homes Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing residential care for 19 people, some of whom had been diagnosed with dementia. The service has communal and dining areas and easily accessible secure gardens. The home is close to local amenities of shops and healthcare facilities.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 unavailable so the clinical lead received feedback.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. The members of the care staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We spoke with people who told us they were safe and happy and we carried out observations for people with limited verbal communication, who showed us through their body language and non-verbal signs that they were happy and safe living there.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people from abuse and felt confident that people were safe. The support plans we looked at contained risk assessments which considered the safety of people and risk were regularly monitored and reviewed.

Records showed that the registered provider's recruitment procedures were robust and systems were in place to check that support workers were of good character and were suitable to care for people who used the service, prior to employment.

Records and observations showed us that there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to support people in line with their needs. People received one to one support when this was needed and staff were skilled in providing person centred support.

There were systems in place to ensure people's medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained and competency assessed to administer medicines.

The home was clean, however some of the carpeted areas of the home needed to be replaced. Procedures were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and felt they had the necessary skills to do their job. Through our observations we saw staff knew people well and understood their needs. Healthcare professionals were accessed as required.

People were treated with kindness and respect and staff clearly knew people’s needs very well. Staff were observed to be very good at communicating with people and responding to their needs.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns.

We found the provider had robust audit and monitoring systems in place to identify and address shortfalls.

The service had a registered manager who has been registered, however she has been absent from work for a period of three months. The deputy manager had been acting manager for this period of time. 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.

Gattison House is a care home situated in Rossington, Doncaster which is registered to accommodate up to 36 people. The service is provided by Runwood Homes Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing residential care for 16 people, some of whom had been diagnosed with a dementia illness. The service has several communal and dining areas and easily accessible secure gardens. The home is close to local amenities of shops and healthcare facilities.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. The members of the management team and care staff we spoke with had a full and up to date understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals. We found that appropriate DoLS applications had been made, and staff were acting in accordance with DoLS authorisations.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. For example we saw evidence that the home regularly made contact with district nurses, community nurses for mental health issues, and peoples own doctors. Other health professionals such as dieticians, dentists, occupational therapists and opticians were also requested as needed.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to the recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.

Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu they liked. Snacks of fruit and biscuits and drinks were also available for people to help themselves

People were able to access some activities. The service currently did not have a member of staff dedicated to activities. It was the expectation of the provider that staff took on this role when time permitted. We observed activities during the morning of the inspection. A café area had been introduced and we saw this area was well used by people who used the service and their visitors.

There was a strong and visible person centred culture in the service. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each individual.) We found the service had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt that the staff knew them and their likes and dislikes.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the recording, safe keeping and safe administration of medicines.

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the acting manager and felt that they were listened to. People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the acting manager. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress. The regional care director shared an action plan with us that the registered manager was working towards. The action plan related to objectives set by Runwood Homes Limited.