CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Garland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's COVID-19 infection prevention measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 March 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections.
They were assured that staff used personal protective equipment safely, testing was available, and the home had suitable cleaning, hygiene, screening and visiting arrangements. Plans were in place to isolate people with COVID-19.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends. Staff also arranged socially distanced activities, including one-to-one support for people who were self-isolating.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Family contact
The home supported people to keep in touch with friends and relatives through telephone, internet and visits using protective screens.
“People were supported to use the telephone and internet, and visits were facilitated using the garden and indoors with the use of protective screens.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that PPE was used safely and that testing was available for people living at the home and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The building was clean and uncluttered, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The building was clean and free from clutter and high touch areas were subject to enhanced cleaning.” from the report
Activities and support
The home arranged socially distanced activities and gave people who were self-isolating one-to-one support.
“People self-isolating received one to one support with activities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are PPE supplies still readily available throughout the home?
- 02How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19?
- 03What checks are visitors asked to complete before entering the home?
- 04What happens if someone living at the home needs to self-isolate?
- 05How will you support my relative to keep in touch with family and take part in activities during any infection restrictions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 2021 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, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but weaknesses in medicines management and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 December 2019. One inspector spoke with five people and six staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
People generally said they were happy and felt safe. Staff were caring, respectful and responsive to people's choices. The home had enough staff, supported people with food and healthcare, and offered activities.
The main problems were with medicines. Storage temperatures were not regularly checked, and medicine stocks could not always be accurately confirmed. The audits meant to find these problems had not identified them. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Caring staff
People described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Inspectors observed considerate support and staff protecting people's privacy.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and considerate way during our inspection.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift to meet people's needs. Staff were able to support people promptly and without rushing.
“The home employed enough staff on each shift to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and staff knew how people wanted to be supported.
“People received personalised support which reflected their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities such as flower arranging, exercise, quizzes and games. Visitors were welcome and people were supported to maintain important relationships.
“The provider offered a range of activities for people to take part in at the home.” from the report
Medicine storage
seriousThe temperature of the medicine storage area was not checked regularly. Because the area was affected by laundry facilities, staff could not be sure medicines were stored at a temperature that kept them effective.
“Regular checks were not carried out on the temperature of the medicines storage area” from the report
Medicine stock records
seriousRecords did not always show medicines carried forward from an earlier cycle. This meant the home could not always confirm that the remaining stock was correct.
“This meant it was not possible to determine whether the remaining medicines stock was correct.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's medicine audits did not identify the problems found during the inspection. The provider said it would widen the audits.
“Improvement was required because medicines audits conducted by senior staff were not robust in identifying the issues that we found at this inspection.” from the report
Assessment tools
minorThe home had useful care information, but was not using nationally recognised assessment tools that could help identify some risks earlier.
“The provider was not currently using nationally recognised assessment tools which may proactively help to identify risks in these areas” from the report
- 01How are medicine storage temperatures checked now, particularly near the laundry facilities?
- 02How do you record and check medicine stocks carried forward from the previous cycle?
- 03What changes have been made to medicine audits since the inspection?
- 04Have you started using nationally recognised assessment tools to assess risks such as malnutrition and skin problems?
- 05Which fire safety improvements were still outstanding at the inspection, and have they now been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home rated separately for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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.
Every inspection of Garland House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.