You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

This inspection took place on 22 November 2017 and was unannounced.

When we inspected the service in June 2016 we identified four regulatory breaches which related to staffing, recruitment, safe care and good governance. At the next inspection in November 2016 we found improvements had been made in all these areas and no regulatory breaches were identified. The quality rating at that time was ‘Requires Improvement’ as we needed to be assured improvements were consistently sustained over time. At this inspection we found improvements had been sustained and further developments made.

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

The Gateway can accommodate up to 92 people across three separate floors, each of which have separate adapted facilities. The service provides care and support to older people, people living with dementia and people with physical disabilities. There were 46 people using the service when we inspected. The home was purpose built in 2015 and provides single bedroom with en-suite toilet and shower facilities over three floors. There are a good range of communal areas on each floor and a bar/café and hairdressing salon in the foyer.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

We found staff were being recruited safely and there were enough staff to take care of people and to keep the home clean. Staff were receiving appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their various roles. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and deputy manager and were receiving formal supervision where they could discuss their on-going development needs.

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff were helpful, attentive and caring. We saw people were treated with respect and compassion. They also told us they felt safe with the care they were provided with. We found there were appropriate systems in place to protect people from risk of harm.

We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff knew about people’s dietary needs and preferences. People told us there was a choice of meals and said the food was very good. We also saw there were plenty of drinks and snacks available for people in between meals.

Care plans were up to date and detailed exactly what care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. People who used the service and relatives told us they were happy with the care and support being provided. We saw people looked well-groomed and well cared for.

People’s healthcare needs were being met and medicines were being managed safely.

Activities were on offer to keep people occupied both on a group and individual basis. Trips out were also available.

The service was well decorated, well maintained, comfortable, clean, tidy and odour free.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.

The registered manager provided staff with leadership and direction and was described as being very approachable and understanding.

There was a q

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were recruited safely. There were enough staff to provide people with the care and support they needed and to keep the home clean.

Staff understood how to keep the person safe and where risks had been identified, action had been taken to mitigate those risks.

Staff made sure medicines were managed safely and kept under review.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were inducted, trained and supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

Meals at the home were good, offering choice and variety. The meal time experience was a calm and relaxed experience for people. People were supported to access health care services to meet their individual needs.

The legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being met.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was caring.

People using the services told us they liked the staff and found them attentive and kind. We saw staff treated people with kindness and patience and knew people well.

People looked well cared for and their privacy and dignity was respected and maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care records were easy to follow, up to date and being reviewed every month.

There were activities on offer to keep people occupied and trips out were also available.

A complaints procedure was in place and people told us they would be able to raise any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 January 2018

The service was well-led.

A registered manager was in place who provided effective leadership and management of the home.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.