Gorton Parks 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person-centred care, and good governance.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. At this assessment, we found the provider remained in breach of the regulation.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care and support were orientated to time and task, and we were not assured people were receiving the care and support they required at the right time.

The provider was not promoting cognition, independence and well-being for people living with dementia. On the first day of our assessment, we found people had been given, ‘The Daily Sparkle’ to read. The daily sparkle is a reminiscence newspaper, and we found people did not understand why they had been provided with the document and had left it on the table. We found activities were not tailored to people’s preferences. We observed several people sat at tables on Abbey Hey and Melland House with arts and crafts items in front of them, but people were not actively joining in the activity.

People who could become agitated did not have their emotional and social needs met. One person was distressed in their bedroom had very clearly written some of their worries in a notebook. The provider had not considered using writing strategies as a tool to enable the person to express their worries to staff.

One person who was unable to speak English sat alone for several hours. We used a translation app to speak with them and observed the person became more communicative. This had not been considered by the provider.

We observed staff using reminiscence photo cards with one person who was showing no interest, however, another person who was very interested in the activity was removed by staff from joining in.

Throughout the visit, there was little interaction between the staff and people. Music was being played from the TV throughout the day on Abbey Hey House and on Melland House, the TV and radio were playing at the same time

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was not presented to people in a suitable format. People were not provided with information in large print or an alternative language to aid better understanding. Several people no longer spoke English but did understand other languages and there was no evidence the provider had considered the use of language and translation apps, pictures and symbols or visual aids.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how they should share concerns. Some people and relatives told us, they would happily raise concerns with staff while others told us, they had needed to raise concerns with social work teams, or they did not know how to raise concerns.

Several relatives told us, they often raised concerns around missing clothes and personal items. One relative told us, “People go into [Name] room and take things. I bought [Name] some slippers on a Sunday and by the following Saturday, they were gone and four weeks later, there is still no sign.” Another relative told us, “Clothes go missing, socks, knickers etc.”

Some relatives told us, communication needs to improve. One relative told us they had raised concerns regarding staff’s lack of compassion and said they had recently been told their relation had broken skin and it had not been documented. They also noticed their relation had a big bruise which they had not been informed about.

Monthly care assessment reviews did not involve people and their families which meant we were not assured the information was accurate and up to date in line with people’s wishes.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. People were not treated with dignity and have their human rights respected. People were not in control of their care and were not able to have their voice heard. Many people had not left the home for some time which included not being able to access the garden for fresh air. People cared for in their room received little interaction from staff. Staff did complete regular checks on people, and we observed they scanned a QR code in the room to evidence the check had been completed but there were no meaningful well-being checks. We observed several people cared for in bed, had food or fluids placed on their bedside tables. Often the food had gone cold by the time staff supported the person to eat. Drinks were often removed from the room after non-consumption. Some relatives raised concerns about female relations being supported with personal care by male staff. Care records generally specified people did not mind the gender of their carer, but we were not assured this was the case for everyone living at the home. The provider had failed to make reasonable adjustments for people living with dementia. The environment was not always dementia friendly. One personhad their bedroom curtains closed in the day, so they were unsure if it was day or night. Music and the TV was continually being played in the communal lounge at the same time which could cause some people, agitation.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.