CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Garmsway
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, provided testing, managed visiting and had arrangements to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control practices.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 10 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control because of COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes. They also asked about staffing pressures.
The home supported visitors to use personal protective equipment and checked them for symptoms. Staff used PPE correctly and had suitable infection control training. People living at the home and staff received regular COVID-19 testing.
The home was clean, with frequent cleaning recorded. Inspectors found an up-to-date infection control policy and arrangements for managing an outbreak. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report is not an overall judgement on the quality of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were given PPE and screened for symptoms before entering the home.
“Visitors were supported to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) and screened for symptoms before entering the home.” from the report
Use of PPE
Staff used PPE effectively and had training in infection prevention and control, including how to put it on and remove it.
“Staff were seen to use PPE effectively and had the appropriate training in infection prevention and control” from the report
Testing arrangements
People living at the home and staff received regular COVID-19 tests, with processes for responding to symptoms.
“All staff and people living at the service received regular COVID-19 testing.” from the report
Cleanliness and planning
The home was clean, frequent-touch surfaces were cleaned and recorded, and an up-to-date infection control policy included contingency plans.
“The service was clean, and cleaning of frequently touched surfaces was in place and recorded regularly by staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to use PPE?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 03What happens if someone develops COVID-19 symptoms or there is an outbreak?
- 04How would you support my relative to stay in their room during an isolation period?
- 05What staffing pressures are affecting the home, and what measures are in place to manage them?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection of all five quality areas and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2022 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, August 2019
Rated Good, with Outstanding responsiveness; inspectors found kind, personalised care but some behaviour records needed more detail.
This was a planned inspection on 9 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, managers, staff and relatives. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities, autism and complex needs. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by trained staff. Care was highly personalised, and people were helped to make choices, build skills, follow interests and maintain relationships.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found some records did not always show lessons learnt after behavioural incidents, and the home needed to consider better access to some communal areas.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and kept up to date when people's needs changed. Staff used this information to provide consistent support.
“Care records were extremely personalised to a high standard and reflected each person's individual needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, develop skills and take control of everyday life. They were involved in recruitment, activities and care planning.
“People were empowered to make choices, take control of their lives and be as independent as they could be.” from the report
Strong relationships
Staff knew people well and built caring, trusting relationships. People were supported to keep in touch with family, make friends and join community activities.
“Staff had developed caring and trusting relationships with people.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Managers responded to concerns and used feedback and audits to make improvements.
“The management team had a proactive approach and were keen to make changes that would impact positively on people's lives.” from the report
Learning from behavioural incidents
needs fixingSome behavioural incidents were not followed by records showing what had been learnt or how support could change. Managers agreed to improve the recording system.
“Records were not always made to evidence such learning.” from the report
Access to communal areas
needs fixingPeople did not have free access to all communal areas, including the kitchen and a small lounge. Managers agreed to review risks and consider how people could prepare their own drinks, meals and snacks.
“People did not have free access to all areas of communal space, such as the kitchen and a small lounge area.” from the report
More detail in records
minorSome records needed more information about the length of restrictions or interventions and the actions taken after incidents. The provider improved some documentation during the inspection.
“Records in some areas would benefit from including additional detail.” from the report
- 01How do you now record what was learnt after a behavioural incident or restrictive intervention?
- 02What access will my relative have to the kitchen and the small lounge, and how are the related risks managed?
- 03How do you record the duration of any restrictions or interventions?
- 04How will my relative be involved in choosing activities, keyworkers and their care plan?
- 05How do you support communication needs, including adapted Makaton, sign language, whiteboards or large print?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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.
Every inspection of Garmsway
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 May 2015.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.