CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ganwick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, staff were trained to recognise abuse, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, choices and goals. Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed thoughtful interactions. Staff respected people's dignity, privacy and communication needs, and supported people to make decisions and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed regularly. People had individual activity programmes, support to maintain relationships and information in formats they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, clear responsibility and regular quality checks. Staff described the management as supportive and approachable.
What inspectors found, June 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection over three visits. One inspector spoke with two people who lived at the home and five staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's needs and people were supported to make choices and become more independent.
The home supports people who may have a learning disability, autism or mental health conditions. Seven people were living there during the inspection, although the home can support up to eight. The home is larger than current best practice guidance, but inspectors said its design and setting reduced any negative impact.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in 2017. Safe had previously been rated Requires Improvement and improved to Good. The other four ratings remained Good.
Safe medicines management
Inspectors found medicines were stored, managed and checked safely. Records were accurate and staff had regular training and competency checks.
“People's medicines were managed safely. We checked medicines and saw accurate records for each person.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and involved them, or their relatives where needed, in planning care.
“People received personalised care that reflected their needs and preferences.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to develop skills, set achievable goals and take part in activities and outings if they wanted to.
“People were supported to develop their independence and set meaningful achievable goals to aspire to.” from the report
Strong management oversight
The home had regular checks, an action plan and a management structure that staff understood. Staff felt able to raise issues and suggest ideas.
“Quality assurance processes were followed to monitor and improve the service.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and surrounding residential setting helped reduce any negative impact on people.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How does the home's larger size affect residents' daily routines, privacy and sense of home?
- 02How will you support my relative to communicate their choices and concerns if they do not communicate verbally?
- 03What goals for independence would you set with my relative, and how would you review their progress?
- 04How are medicines checked and how would you tell us if there was a medicines error?
- 05How are relatives involved in care planning and reviews?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 2020 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 overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety needed improvement in medicines and recruitment checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 June 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care plans, staff files, training records, monitoring information and complaints.
The home supported six people at the time, although it was registered for up to eight. People were described as safe, happy and well looked after. Staff were kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people were supported with activities, health appointments, food and communication.
The main problems were in the Safe area. One medicine record did not show clearly whether two pain relief tablets had been given, and the audit had not found this. Recruitment checks were also incomplete in some staff files. The overall rating was Good, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement. The other four areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were familiar with people's needs and supported them with dignity, privacy and compassion.
“People were cared for and supported in a kind and compassionate way by staff that knew them well and were familiar with their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, communication needs, cultural and religious needs, and progress.
“Care plans were personalised and captured the individual well and all the details that mattered to that person were included.” from the report
Good activities and community links
People were supported to attend day clubs, college, church, horse stables and other activities that matched their interests.
“People were supported to maintain their interests and to take part in activities which they enjoyed.” from the report
Supportive management
People, relatives and staff were positive about how the home was managed. Staff said the manager was approachable and supportive.
“People who lived at Ganwick House, their relatives and staff were all very positive about how the home was managed.” from the report
Medicine recording error
seriousIt was unclear from the records whether two pain relief tablets had been given. The weekly medicines audit had not identified the problem, although extra weekly checks were added afterwards.
“However we did find one instance where it was unclear if two tablets for pain relief had been given to one person.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files did not contain satisfactory references or background checks. A gap in one person's work history had also not been explored.
“However we found these pre-employment checks did not always include obtaining satisfactory references or background checks.” from the report
- 01What extra weekly medicine checks were introduced after the recording error, and how are they reviewed now?
- 02Have all staff files since been checked for references, background checks and unexplained gaps in work history?
- 03How do you make sure two trained staff are involved when medicines are given?
- 04How will you keep care plans and communication guidance up to date as people's needs change?
- 05How are families involved in the three-monthly care reviews and decisions about activities or health support?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection on 16 June 2015 found the required standards were met in the areas it looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Ganwick House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.