CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Garswood House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. This included cleaning, PPE, testing, social distancing, safe admissions and an up-to-date infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, including cleaning, PPE, testing and social distancing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2021. It checked how well the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infection.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well maintained. Staff used PPE appropriately, changed it between supporting different people and had their practice checked daily. COVID-19 testing and risk assessments were in place.
The home had reduced clutter, spaced chairs apart and used different lounge areas to support social distancing. Staff were allocated to particular people or areas. Visits were restricted in line with local guidance, with staff helping people keep in touch by telephone and Zoom.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives no overall quality rating and no rating for most of the five questions.
Clean premises
The home was clean and well maintained. Cleaning schedules covered all areas and were monitored by the registered manager.
“Staff followed robust cleaning schedules to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned; these were monitored by the registered manager.” from the report
PPE practice
Staff used PPE appropriately and changed it between supporting different people. Their PPE practice was checked daily.
“We saw staff wore Personal protective equipment (PPE) as appropriate and regularly changed this in between supporting different people.” from the report
Testing and risk checks
COVID-19 testing was being carried out and risk assessments were completed for people and staff considered to be at higher risk.
“Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with good practice guidance.” from the report
Social distancing arrangements
The layout had been changed to support social distancing. Staff were allocated to particular people or areas to reduce wider contact.
“Staff were allocated to support certain people, or to work within certain areas of the home; this helped to minimise the amount of staff contact with a larger number of residents.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Although visits were restricted under local infection control guidance, staff supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends by telephone and Zoom.
“During this time staff were supporting people to stay in contact with their relatives and friends via telephone and Zoom calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visiting arrangements are currently in place, and how are visits kept safe?
- 02How are staff PPE practices checked now, and how often are checks recorded?
- 03How often are people using the home and staff tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 04How are current health risks reflected in each person's care plan?
- 05How are staff allocated to people or areas of the home to limit unnecessary contact?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other key questions were not assessed and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with minor gaps in medicines guidance and care-plan records.
Inspectors visited on 24 and 25 October 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They also looked around the home and checked care files, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings, suitable food and respectful care.
There were two minor gaps. The home could not confirm that pharmacist advice had been obtained for some medicines given secretly in food. Also, people's involvement in care planning was not always recorded consistently. The manager said these points would be addressed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were regularly checked against people's needs and were sufficient to keep people safe.
“Staffing levels were consistently appropriate to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good management checks
The home and provider carried out regular audits. Action plans were recorded and followed up.
“We saw action plans had been generated following each audit, which had been followed up and signed off during the next visit.” from the report
Pharmacist advice for covert medicines
needs fixingFor some people who refused medicines, the home had GP authorisation to give them without their knowledge. Inspectors could not confirm that pharmacist advice had also been obtained about crushing or mixing the medicines.
“we could not confirm guidance from the pharmacist had also been sought, which is best practice” from the report
Care-plan signatures
needs fixingPeople said they had been involved in care planning, but this involvement was not always recorded in the files inspected. The home was changing its care-plan format and said it would improve this.
“we found this had not been consistently captured within the care files we viewed.” from the report
Some mixed views about activities
minorActivities were available and recorded, but one person said they could become boring because they wanted more active outings.
“Yes, we do things, though can get a bit boring, though this is because I am more active than some and prefer going out.” from the report
- 01How do you now obtain and record pharmacist advice when medicines need to be given covertly?
- 02How do you record that residents or their legal representatives have been involved in signing and reviewing care plans?
- 03What activities are available for people who want more active outings or activities outside the home?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels still match each resident's changing needs?
- 05How will you keep families updated about the building work and any changes to shared rooms?
This was an inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2018 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 Garswood House Residential Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Garswood House Residential Care Home →
- December 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Garswood House Residential Care Home →
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2017.
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 Wigan
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.