You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 March 2019

Garth House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Garth House accommodates 42 people in one building.

At the time of our unannounced inspection on 21 January 2019 there were 29 older people living at the home, some of whom were living with dementia.

There was 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. The registered manager was not present during our inspection as they were away from the service for a short absence. An interim manager had been brought in to oversee the service in the meantime.

At our inspection in December 2017, the service received a rating of Requires Improvement. This was because we found shortfalls within the environment, activities and records for people. We found at this inspection improvements had been made. However, we have made further recommendations to the registered provider which we will follow up at our next inspection.

People had opportunities to take part in activities, however we found further work was needed to ensure people in their rooms were not at risk of social isolation. We also found one person whose care plan was not being followed. We have issued a recommendation to the registered provider in both of these areas.

Although we found improvements to the environment and décor since our last inspection, further work was needed to help ensure that people lived in an environment that was fully fit for purpose. We have issued a recommendation to the registered provider in this respect.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected. Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care.

Staff said they received good support from their colleagues. Staff had established effective links with health and social care professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. The registered manager had notified CQC of significant events.

People who lived at the home, their relatives and other stakeholders had opportunities to give their views. Important areas of the service were audited regularly and action plans were developed when areas for improvement were identified.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled staff to meet their needs and keep them safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had.

Risks to people’s safety were identified and action taken to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and measures implemented to reduce the risk of them happening again.

People lived in a home which was clean and hygienic. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Appropriate equipment was available to suit people’s needs and this was regularly checked for its safety.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the service to ensure staff could provide the support they required. Staff had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Where people’s needs changed, staff responded in a proactive way to meet those needs. End of life care for people reflected their choices.

People could make choices about the food they ate. People were supported to maintain good health and to obtain treatment when they needed it.

Staff were kind and caring towards people and there were positive relationships observed. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. People were supported to make choices about their care and to maintain rela

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 March 2019

The service was Safe

People lived in an environment that was clean and checked for its safety. Although continued work was needed to update the environment.

People�s medicines were managed safely.

Risks to people were responded to and staff knew how to recognise abuse and act upon it.

People were cared for by enough staff who had been appointed through robust recruitment processes.

Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents and appropriate action taken.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 March 2019

The service was Effective.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People�s needs were assessed before moving in to Garth House and there were adaptations in place suitable for people.

Staff were provided with the training and support needed to carry out their roles. Staff worked and communicated well with each other.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink as well as support to access health care professionals when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 March 2019

The service was Caring.

People were cared for by staff who demonstrated a kind and caring approach to them. Staff showed people respect and dignity.

People were encouraged to be independent and make decisions about their care.

People were supported to maintain relationships that meant something to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 March 2019

The service was Responsive.

People had access to activities, however further work was needed to embed individualised activities for people in their rooms.

People�s care plans were detailed and people were asked about their wishes at the end of their life. Although one person�s care plan was not robustly followed by staff.

There was a complaints procedure in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 March 2019

The service was Well-Led.

The registered manager had a drive to improve the service.

There was a wide range of quality assurance taking place.

People�s views were sought.

Staff felt support and valued by management.

Staff worked effectively with outside agencies.

The registered manager had notified CQC of significant events.