CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Galsworthy House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Galsworthy House Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but identified gaps in records, mental health training and capacity assessments.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 31 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, training, recruitment and other documents. They also observed care because some people could not communicate their views directly.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, their medicines and risks were managed safely, and their health, food and communication needs were supported.
There were some shortfalls. Mental capacity assessments at the initial assessment stage were too general, some staff lacked recent mental health awareness training, and some care records did not include enough personal information or end of life wishes. The management team said it would address these issues. The home had also experienced disruption from recent management changes.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about the way staff treated people. Inspectors observed staff taking time to understand people's needs and backgrounds.
“People told us that staff were caring and compassionate.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Staff understood safeguarding procedures and people's risk assessments gave guidance about their individual needs. Medicines, including controlled drugs, were checked and recorded safely.
“Staff are knowledgeable, follow instructions and respond to risks appropriately. No concerns whatsoever.” from the report
People's choices supported
Staff supported people to make everyday choices and encouraged independence. They used people's preferences, beliefs and communication needs to guide their care.
“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” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People's health and dietary needs were recorded and met. The home worked with healthcare professionals and staff understood specialist dietary support such as thickeners.
“There was a multi-disciplinary approach to care which meant that people's health needs were met as necessary.” from the report
Incomplete personal and end of life records
needs fixingSome care records did not explain enough about people's personal preferences, emotional needs or end of life wishes. The management team said it would review the recording process.
“Some care records failed to offer insight into the individual and their preferences or acknowledge their emotional needs.” from the report
Mental health training
needs fixingStaff had guidance for supporting two people with mental health diagnoses, but had not received regular mental health awareness training. The management team said training had been booked.
“Care record viewed for those two people highlighted how their meant health conditions may present and the steps staff needed to take to support those people to manage this.” from the report
Mental capacity assessments
needs fixingInitial assessments were carried out as general assessments of people's capacity, rather than for specific decisions. The management team said these generic assessments would stop.
“Although these assessments were only used to inform the staff team about people's ability to make everyday choices, this practice was contradicting the main principal of the MCA” from the report
Lift reliability
minorConcerns were raised that the lift was not always working. The management team said action was being taken and aimed to install a new lift soon.
“Some concerns were raised in relation to the lift in the home which was not always working as necessary.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed mental health awareness training, and how is this training kept up to date?
- 02How do you record each person's personal preferences, emotional needs and end of life wishes?
- 03How do you make sure mental capacity assessments relate to a specific decision and follow the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04Has the lift been replaced or repaired, and what arrangements are in place if it stops working?
- 05What changes have been made since the recent management changes to keep care delivery stable?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 2019 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some record-keeping and dementia-environment issues.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 27 and 29 June 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines management, trained staff, kind care and access to healthcare. People were supported with food, drink, activities and end-of-life choices.
This inspection checked whether improvements made after the previous Requires Improvement rating had continued. The four earlier breaches had been met by January 2017, and inspectors said the home was now delivering a good service. The home was still being refurbished, and some rooms were empty during the work.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, given by trained staff and checked for errors. Records showed medicines were administered as prescribed.
“We observed that medicines were being administered correctly to people by staff trained in medicines administration.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found that they understood how to meet people's needs.
“Staff had the skills, experiences and a good understanding of how to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People were referred to healthcare professionals when needed, including GPs and specialist services.
“We saw evidence in the people's care records of people being referred to and receiving access to other healthcare services” from the report
Choices and end-of-life wishes
People were encouraged to make their own decisions. Care records included advance care plans where people wanted them.
“People were supported by staff to make decisions about their end of life care.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingThe second floor was poorly lit, and doors and walls looked alike. Several people struggled to find their rooms, so inspectors recommended reviewing the decoration.
“We recommend that the provider reviews the decoration of the service to ensure the needs of people with dementia are considered.” from the report
Care records were not always clear
needs fixingSome records had gaps, faded copies, unsigned changes, or entries without dates and times. This made it harder to see who had recorded or changed information.
“There were other entries which were not always dated and timed. This made it difficult to identify who had made the entry or change.” from the report
Pressure mattress setting
needs fixingOne mattress was set for a much heavier person than the person using it. The mattress was faulty and was replaced immediately, but inspectors also found gaps in turning records.
“The person actually weighed 36kg, so the setting was above what it should have been.” from the report
Families did not always have care-plan copies
minorSome people and relatives said they had not seen or received a copy of the care plan. This could make it harder for families to check agreed care.
“Yes we did but I don't think I have a copy.” from the report
Information about refurbishment
needs fixingComplaints showed that people and relatives wanted clearer information about the refurbishment, its timescale and disruption.
“People and relatives felt they did not have sufficient information about the plans, the time scales and the disruption it would cause to the home.” from the report
- 01Has the refurbishment been completed, and what changes were made to the dementia floor so people can find their rooms?
- 02How are care records checked to make sure entries are dated, timed, signed and complete?
- 03How do you check that each person's pressure-relieving mattress is set correctly and that pressure-relief care is recorded?
- 04Will we receive and be able to review a copy of our relative's current care plan?
- 05How will you keep families informed about complaints, planned works and any disruption?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and checking whether earlier improvements had been sustained. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 2017 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 Galsworthy House Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Galsworthy House Nursing Home →
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Galsworthy House Nursing Home →
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2013.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Thames
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.