We carried out a review of the data available to us about Gratwick House 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 Gratwick House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were supported to receive visits in a variety of ways including garden visits, window visits and contact through video calling. Through the pandemic the home had acted in accordance with government visiting guidance and had adapted the home to enable people to receive visitors safely, such as an indoor visiting room. Visitors took a Lateral Flow Device (LFD) test and had a temperature check before the visit to test for Covid-19. Visitors were supplied with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as masks, to prevent the risk of spread of infection.
When government guidance had restricted visiting, people had been supported to stay in touch with relatives using video calls and an online relatives’ gateway. Staff also regularly updated relatives on the wellbeing of their loved one.
People and staff participated in regular coronavirus testing in accordance with current guidance.
Staff were observed wearing PPE in line with good practice. Staff had developed simplified PPE posters to support donning and doffing practices.
A relative shared their experience with us. They had been so thankful to the team at Gratwick House how they had provided support and reassurance throughout the pandemic and had supported family members to stay in contact with their loved ones. They told us, “They have taken time to speak with us and their attention to detail is impeccable”.
People’s experience of using this service:
People said they felt safe. Individual risks that people faced were managed by staff that knew people well and understood the subtleties of their behaviour and body language.
People’s needs were assessed and reviewed, and their preferences captured in documents and reflected in how support was provided.
Medicines were administered, stored, taken receipt of and returned safely.
The service took steps to ensure people did not feel lonely and closely looked for signs of social isolation.
Activities were person led and reviewed at weekly meetings attended by people living in the service.
People enjoyed the food and were offered a range of dishes consistent with their dietary needs and preferences.
People were treated with dignity and respect by caring staff who nurtured a family feel in the service.
Staff were supported by a pro-active registered manager through supervision and training and were given opportunities to feed into the running of the service.
People were given choice and control in their lives and the service actively sought to provide support with the least restrictive practises.
Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.
The service was looking for ways to improve and open to feedback. Audits were regular and there was good oversight of the day to day running of the service.
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated good at its last inspection and the report was published on 14 November 2016.
Why we inspected:
This was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating. We had no concerns prior to inspecting this service.
Follow up:
We will maintain contact with the service, we will re-inspect according to our planned schedule but may visit sooner if we are made aware of concerns.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. One person told us, “Yes, I do feel safe here”. Another said, “They usually they come quickly when I call”. When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding adults and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.
Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.
People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.
Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, including caring for people with pressure damage (bed sores), and palliative care (end of life). Staff had received both one to one and group supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place. One member of staff told us, “Supervision is a good incentive to improve and discuss anything you are struggling with”. Another said, “Training is important, so we can get better at what we do for the residents. It’s all for the residents to make them happy”.
People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. One person told us, “The meals are very good, we are well fed. You can ask for anything and they will provide it”. Special dietary requirements were met, and people’s weight was monitored, with their permission. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.
People chose how to spend their day and they took part in activities in the service and the community. People told us they enjoyed the activities, which included singing, films, beauty treatments and themed events, such as reminiscence sessions. One person told us, “Yes, I do feel well looked after. We do have some entertainment and I choose what I like”. People were also encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.
People felt well looked after and supported. We observed friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “I find the staff helpful and very friendly, none of them have been nasty. They are good, and I’m well looked after”. Care plans described people’s needs and preferences and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
People were encouraged to express their views and had completed surveys. Feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. One person told us, “No, I’ve never needed to complain, but I would if needed”.
Staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy in their work. They felt supported within their roles, describing an ‘open door’ management approach, where managers were always available to discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns. The provider undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.
This is a summary of what people told us and what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People who used the service told us they felt safe and comfortable. One described the home as 'tranquil'. A visitor told us they were satisfied their relative was safe.
We found people's care plans were written to ensure their safety and welfare. We observed staff delivering care according to people's plans. The service had effective systems to ensure people's medicines were managed and administered safely. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were used appropriately and when it was in the person's best interests.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received. They were happy with their surroundings, their rooms, the food and their care workers. Visiting healthcare professionals told us the service followed advice and guidance to ensure people's needs were met.
We found people's care and support were based on thorough assessments and detailed and personalised support plans. Systems were in place to ensure care was delivered according to people's plans. The service co-operated effectively with other providers.
Is the service caring?
A visiting relative described staff as 'patient and kind'. People who used the service told us they were consulted about their care and support. They said staff listened to them.
Staff we spoke with were motivated to provide high quality care. They had a thorough knowledge of people's needs and how they preferred to have their care delivered. We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service.
Is the service responsive?
People who used the service were involved in their assessments and care planning, and their views and preferences were taken into account. Care and support were provided with their consent. The service responded to changes in people's needs or circumstances.
We found the service had systems in place to ensure the care provided was appropriate to people's changing needs.
Is the service well-led?
Systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Risks were assessed and appropriate action plans were in place. There were processes in place to review and learn from incidents, accidents and complaints.
Care needs were assessed, recorded and met. People told us they were happy with their care.
People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. We spoke to people and we were told, " We always have choice" and " We always get plenty of food".
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, People told us they felt safe in the home.
The home was neat and clean throughout. One person told us " they clean and vacuum daily". People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider made suitable arrangements to ensure it was fit for purpose.
The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.