CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 77 Gloucester Road North
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, infection control, fire safety and risk management systems were generally effective, although some risk assessments were not up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report describes staff as respectful, caring and person-centred.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says people were supported with activities they enjoyed and with their personal goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and had systems to monitor quality and safety. Some records and reviews were incomplete, but action plans were in place.
What inspectors found, April 2023
77 Gloucester Road North is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some risk assessments and care reviews were not up to date.
The home supports seven people with learning disabilities. One inspector visited without notice on 28 and 29 March 2023. They spoke with people, staff, a relative and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Well-led remained Good. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities at home and in the local community.
Medicines, safeguarding, staffing, infection control and emergency arrangements were found to be safe. However, some risk assessments had not been reviewed, and records of monthly keyworker reviews were missing for some people. The manager had action plans to address these issues.
Staff know people well
Staff understood people's needs and communicated respectfully. They used observation to support people who could not communicate verbally.
“People were supported by staff that knew and understood them well.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely and given by staff whose competence had been checked. The report says procedures had improved since the previous inspection.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely. Since the last inspection improvements had been made to medicine procedures” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, action plans and staff meetings to check safety and improve care. It had also recruited a full staff team for April 2023.
“The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored.” from the report
Risk assessments needed review
needs fixingNot all risk assessments had been kept under review. The manager said care documentation was being moved to a new format.
“It was noted that not all risk assessments had been kept under review.” from the report
Some monthly reviews were missing
needs fixingMonthly keyworker reviews were not consistent for everyone. Records for one person were missing for three months, and another person had gaps in January and February 2023.
“One person's monthly reviews could not be found for the last three months, and another person had gaps in January and February 2023.” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments now been reviewed and moved to the new care documentation format?
- 02How do you make sure every person receives their monthly keyworker review?
- 03How much agency staff is currently being used, and how are agency staff introduced to people's needs and routines?
- 04What progress has been made with the planned care plan reviews?
- 05How are one-to-one activity hours recorded and checked for each person?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected and previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safe staffing and medicines needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 and 11 April 2018. One inspector observed people, spoke with staff and the manager, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training, accidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported six people. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported choice, independence, healthcare, activities and communication. The ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Good.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were not always managed safely. There were also concerns that too many bank and agency staff were being used, meaning people were not always supported by staff who knew them well.
The overall rating was Good, the same as at the previous inspection in April 2016. This means the home was judged to provide good care overall, but improvements were needed in safety.
Respectful relationships
Staff had positive relationships with people and supported them in a friendly, respectful way. People were offered choices and encouraged to remain independent.
“People receive support from staff who treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care records included people's histories, preferences, communication needs and important goals. Staff used this information to support activities and everyday choices.
“People's individuality was respected.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff received induction, relevant training and regular supervision. People were supported to attend appointments and receive advice from health professionals.
“Staff had also been given training to the specific needs of people in the home” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to take part in interests such as music, gardening, hydrotherapy, shopping and church activities.
“People received the opportunity to access their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome medicines were given without all the required pharmacist advice or records. Creams were not dated when opened, and some medicines were not properly recorded on the administration records.
“Medicines were not always administered or managed safely.” from the report
Staffing and continuity
seriousThere were more bank or agency staff than permanent staff over the two weeks reviewed. Two shifts had no permanent staff, and inspectors heard casual staff asking permanent staff for guidance.
“There was not always a sufficient number of staff with in depth knowledge deployed to ensure that people's needs were consistently met to keep them safe.” from the report
Afternoon safety arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were not satisfied that the afternoon staffing arrangement safely managed people's different needs and risks. They asked the manager to risk assess the arrangement.
“Our view was that people's safety in the afternoons was reliant on the assumption that people's behaviour did not change.” from the report
Care and health records
needs fixingOne care plan had not been reviewed for eight months. Fluid intake and output was recorded for one person but was not always totalled each day.
“We noted that one person's care plan had not been reviewed for eight months” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified the medicine errors found during the inspection. Inspectors recommended making medicine audits more robust.
“However during our inspection we found medication errors which had not been picked up by the various audits” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure medicines are always recorded correctly and given as prescribed?
- 02How do you make sure a pharmacist has confirmed that medicines added to food are safe and effective?
- 03How many permanent staff are usually on each shift, and how do you make sure bank or agency staff know each person's needs?
- 04Have the afternoon staffing arrangements and the risks of people being apart been reviewed since the inspection?
- 05How are care plan reviews, fluid records and medicine audits checked now?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, carried out on 9 and 11 April 2018; the report says both the premises and care were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 77 Gloucester Road North
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.