We carried out a review of the data available to us about Garden City Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Garden City Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Garden City Court is a ‘care home’ registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 75 older people. At the time of this inspection 65 people were living at the service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Due to being in continued outbreak, restrictions were in place around visitors, however there continued to be robust infection control procedures in place. Visitors wore personal protective equipment (PPE) undertook testing for COVID-19 and verified their COVID-19 vaccination status.
Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed. There was support for staff in place which included training, guidance and access to additional support at provider level.
Staff received training in relation to COVID-19 to enable them to immediately instigate full infection control measures when people tested positive or showed symptoms.
All staff working at the service had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or had declared themselves medically exempt. The provider had introduced a process to ensure that staff met the vaccination requirements and had provided evidence to their satisfaction. Those staff in high risk groups such as BAME, clinically 'extremely vulnerable' had been assessed and actions in place to mitigate risks.
Garden City Court is a care home providing accommodation for up to 75 people older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 62 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe and told us the staff looked after them well. We noted staff worked safely and in accordance with people’s care plans and risk assessments. Relatives told us the registered manager and the staff team were very good. People’s safety and welfare was monitored. There was an overview of accidents and incidents and these were reviewed to help ensure there was not a reoccurrence. Medicines were managed safely.
People were given choices and staff knew people well. Care plans were detailed giving staff the appropriate information to meet people’s needs. People were encouraged to eat and drink well to help promote their wellbeing.
Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs and staff received training and supervision. They felt supported for their role and enjoyed working at the service. Training relating to infection control and COVID-19 had been delivered. Staff knew how to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19. People and relatives praised the staff team for the management of the service during a difficult time.
Effective governance systems had been embedded in the home. Any events or feedback was used to improve the quality of care. There was an action plan in place to drive improvement throughout the service. Feedback from people, their relatives, staff and healthcare professionals were positive about the leadership in the home and they stated it was a good place to live or work.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 26 September 2019).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns raised about the care people received. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Please see the safe section of this full report. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Garden City Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff were seen and heard to be engaging well with people. Staff told us, they frequently checked on people isolating in their rooms to ensure their health needs were met.
People’s emotional and physical care needs were met by staff due to increased staffing levels to support staff to spend sufficient time with people when needed.
The provider had developed policies, procedures and risks assessments for managing the service in relation to COVID 19.
People who were in the higher risk groups were shielded throughout the pandemic.
When people tested positive for COVID-19 they isolated in their rooms for 14 days. Staff were aware of the impact on people with isolating and supported them to maintain their well-being.
Staff were aware of the symptoms of COVID -19 and were trained to use specialist equipment to monitor symptoms.
Staff had received additional training with how to put on and take off PPE, infection control and COVID 19.
Staff told us they felt very supported by managers and their colleagues. They told us they felt they received good support from the registered manager.
The registered manager worked in partnership with local health authorities to manage infections in the home. They had an established network in place and used this appropriately when needed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Garden City Court is a purpose-built residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 74 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 75 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were happy with the care and support they received. People and relatives told us staff were kind. Staff were friendly and attentive to people’s needs. People gave mixed views about if there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were trained and felt supported.
People felt safe and staff were aware of how to promote people’s safety. Regular checks were in place to ensure staff worked in accordance with training and health and safety guidance adhered to. However, some elements of promoting people’s safety were not adhered to and this had not been identified through the quality assurance systems. For example, pressure care management. We made a recommendation about promoting safety. Following the inspection, the manager advised us of action taken to ensure the staff were working safely.
Feedback about the registered manager and management team was positive. There was an open culture in the home and an expectation that people were supported in a person centred way. Staff were clear about their roles and the management team engaged well with the team and other agencies. However some improvements were needed to ensure quality systems identified and addressed areas needing improvement.
The environment was pleasant with plenty of communal space for people to enjoy. People enjoyed the activities that were provided, however staff told us that they would like more time to support people with activities.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were involved in planning their care and they, along with their relatives, felt listened to. People had end of life care plans, developed by the frailty nurse, which helped to ensure they died with dignity. Complaints were responded to appropriately and people felt confident to make a complaint if needed. Feedback was sought through meetings.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 March 2017). At this inspection the service has remained rated as Good.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Garden City Court is a purpose built home for up to 75 elderly people who are frail and may also have dementia. As well as the residential beds, the home also has 15 interim care beds for people who were recovering after a hospital stay.
The service has a registered manager in place. 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.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised and how to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. In our previous inspection we had found that staff did not always respond to call bells in a timely manner. In this inspection we found that this was no longer an issue. Previously people using the service felt that there were not enough staff to support them safely. This was also no longer an issue as there were sufficient staff available to support people.
The provider had robust recruitment processes in place. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and would seek people's consent before they provided any care or support. Staff received supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people's individual needs.
People were supported by caring and respectful staff who knew them well. Staff were given the opportunity to get to know the people they supported.
People's needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual, preferences, and choices. Staff supported people to maintain their health and well-being.
Feedback was encouraged from people and the manager acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service. The provider had effective quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that they were meeting the required standards of care. There was a formal process for handling complaints and concerns which were investigated and resolved in a timely manner.
Garden City Court is a purpose built home for up to 75 elderly people who are frail and may also have dementia. As well as the residential beds, the home also has 15 interim care beds for people who were recovering after a hospital stay.
The service has a registered manager in place. 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.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised and how to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. Staff did not always however respond to call bells in a timely manner.
The provider had robust recruitment processes in place. People using the service did not always feel that there was sufficient staff available to support them safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and would seek people’s consent before they provided any care or support. Staff received supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.
People were supported by caring and respectful staff who knew them well. Staff were given the opportunity to get to know the people they supported.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual, preferences, and choices. Staff supported people to maintain their health and well-being.
Feedback was encouraged from people and the manager acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service. The provider had effective quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that they were meeting the required standards of care but these did not cover all areas. There was a formal process for handling complaints and concerns which were investigated and resolved in a timely manner.
We found the provider was in breach of a regulation of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.