CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Garrett House Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse and reduce risks. Medicines were given as prescribed, the home was visibly clean, and staff were safely recruited.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Repairs, refurbishment and redecoration were ongoing, but some issues remained, including one lift awaiting repair, intermittent hot water and unfinished outdoor areas. Staff supervision meetings were not always happening as planned.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff kindness, patience and respect. Inspectors observed staff listening to people, seeking consent and respecting privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records described people's needs and preferences, and staff were observed responding to requests. However, relatives gave some mixed feedback about care plan reviews, responsiveness and the amount of activity.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, gathered views and had plans to improve the service. Most feedback about leadership was positive, although one staff member said their concerns had not always been addressed.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home needed improvement to its environment and some supervision arrangements.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. The inspector visited on 9 May 2023, reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment and training records, and looked at health and safety checks. They spoke with people, staff and relatives.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, received their medicines as prescribed, and were supported by caring staff. Inspectors also found activities, visiting arrangements, personalised care and complaint systems in place.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Refurbishment and repairs were under way, but some environmental problems remained. These included one lift awaiting repair, intermittent hot water, unfinished fencing and a lack of privacy in part of the garden. Staff supervision meetings were also not always taking place as planned.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service under the current provider. The previous provider was rated Requires Improvement in 2021, but that was not a rating of this newly registered service.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring and patient. Inspectors saw staff listen to people, ask for consent and respect their choices.
“Staff interacted with people in a caring way, they took time to speak with people and listened to them.” from the report
Medicines and safety
People received medicines when needed and as prescribed. Risks, accidents and falls were monitored, with action taken to reduce future harm.
“Records showed people received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans included people's needs, likes and dislikes. There was a programme of group and individual activities, and people were supported to receive visitors.
“People's care records included how their assessed needs and preferences were to be met.” from the report
Positive leadership
The management team used audits, listened to people's views and had plans for improvement. People, relatives and most staff gave positive feedback about how the home was run.
“The registered manager and the management team undertook a range or monitoring and audits to assist them to identify shortfalls and put measures in place to address them.” from the report
Repairs and building condition
needs fixingThe improvement work was not finished. One lift was still awaiting repair, hot water was intermittent, and some fencing and garden privacy issues remained.
“Not all of the improvements had been made in the environment.” from the report
Mixed feedback about responsiveness and activities
minorSome relatives reported delays with call bells, concerns about care plans not reflecting changing needs, and too few activities or encouragement to join them.
“A relative told us there were a, "Lack of activities or general stimulation for both physical and mental well-being.” from the report
- 01What is the timescale for repairing the second lift, and what support is available to people affected while it is out of use?
- 02Has the boiler part been fitted, and is hot water now reliably available throughout the home?
- 03How often are staff supervision meetings now held, and how do you check that all staff receive them?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 05What activities are available for people who do not join group sessions, and how are they encouraged without pressure?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the current provider's service had not previously been rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 June 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.
Every inspection of Garrett House Residential Home Limited
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Garrett House Residential Home Limited →
- July 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2022.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.