CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Garside House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control. They noted some gaps in one person's turning chart records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate healthcare support, staff had relevant training and people's nutrition and hydration were monitored. The home had improved its work around capacity, consent and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors observed respectful interactions, privacy, dignity and support for people's choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Communication needs and personal preferences were recorded and staff responded to people's needs. Activities were limited during the inspection because there was no activities coordinator at that time.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, regular meetings and audits, and a positive culture. They noted a minor issue with the quality of water hygiene records.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Garside House Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 22 and 26 August 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, reviewed records and checked medicines, staffing, training, complaints, safety and infection control.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care records and good links with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in October 2020. Inspectors found better arrangements for medicines, capacity and consent, communication, food choices and person-centred care. There were still some minor record-keeping issues and limited activities while a new activities coordinator was starting.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness and compassion. Inspectors also saw caring and reassuring interactions.
“People and their relatives were positive about the kind and compassionate nature of the staff team and how they were treated with respect.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs and call bells were answered without delay.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and recorded safely. Staff followed instructions for medicines given when needed, and their competence was checked.
“There were systems in place to ensure people's medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice.” from the report
Management improvements
People, relatives and staff reported improvements in management and communication over the previous year.
“People and their relatives were positive about the management of the service and highlighted the improvements that had been made in the last year.” from the report
Limited activities at the visit
minorThere was no activities coordinator during the inspection. Group activities were difficult for many people, and inspectors observed few one-to-one activities.
“At the time of the inspection, the home did not have an activities coordinator.” from the report
Turning chart gaps
needs fixingInspectors found some gaps in one person's repositioning records. Staff were reminded to complete the required record.
“We saw one minor discrepancy related to repositioning guidelines for one person where there were some gaps in their turning chart records.” from the report
Water hygiene records
minorInspectors found a minor discrepancy in the quality of water hygiene records. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We saw a minor discrepancy related to the quality of water hygiene records, which the registered manager acknowledged.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available, and how do you provide one-to-one activities for people who cannot join groups?
- 02How do you check that repositioning and turning charts are completed accurately and on time?
- 03What changes have been made to the water hygiene records since the inspection?
- 04How do you make sure care plans contain enough detail about how dementia affects each person?
- 05How are relatives involved in planning activities and reviewing personal preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 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, June 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe and well managed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors gave 24 hours' notice.
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained. They were assured that PPE, testing, cleaning, visitor arrangements, isolation arrangements and infection control policies were being managed appropriately.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The Safe question was marked “Inspected but not rated”, and the other four areas were not assessed in this visit.
Clean and maintained home
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained, with regular cleaning of high-touch areas and reviews of infection control audits.
“The home was clean and well maintained. The provider had robust procedures in place for managing infection control.” from the report
PPE and infection control
PPE was available throughout the home and staff used it in line with current guidance. Staff had also received updated infection control and COVID-19 training.
“We saw personal protective equipment (PPE) was accessible throughout the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to see family and friends. Technology was used to keep relatives updated when visits were not possible.
“People were supported to see their family and friends. If this was not possible staff were using technology to keep family members updated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors currently managed if there is an infection outbreak?
- 03How often are staff tested and trained in infection prevention and control?
- 04How would the home isolate someone who tested positive for an infection?
- 05How does the home keep families updated if visits cannot take place?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so it did not assess the other four CQC questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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.
Every inspection of Garside House Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 August 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Westminster
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. 78 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.