CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gatesgarth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed and managed. The report says the home had recently changed its medicine process after dispensing mistakes, with two staff now checking medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training for people's specific health needs and supported people to access healthcare. Care plans covered nutrition, hydration, allergies and swallowing risks.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff had strong, supportive relationships with people and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's choices, needs and preferences. People were supported to follow hobbies, visit places in the community and maintain relationships with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a new registered manager who was described as experienced and proactive. Regular audits, feedback and partnership working were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with previous medicine dispensing mistakes addressed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 June 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed daily life, checked the building, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home provides accommodation and personal care for five people with a learning disability. Inspectors found that people felt safe, were treated with kindness and had their choices, independence and community activities supported.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in February 2017.
Kind relationships
Staff had built long-term, trusting relationships with people. Inspectors saw warm and compassionate interactions.
“Staff had developed strong and supportive relationships with people. Staff consistently treated people in a very kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to learn skills, make choices and take positive risks. They could take part in activities in the home and wider community.
“People were very well supported to take positive risks to ensure they were able to access the community and live fulfilling lives safely.” from the report
Active community life
People were supported to follow their interests and lead active lives, including shopping, visiting attractions and attending sporting and cultural events.
“People were leading fulfilling and active lives and were supported to engage as full citizens within the local and wider community.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received regular training and supervision, including extra training for people's specialist healthcare needs.
“Staff received a comprehensive training programme to equip them for the specific needs of people they were supporting.” from the report
Previous medicine mistakes
needs fixingThe report says mistakes had been made when medicines were dispensed. The home had introduced a two-person checking system, but families may want to check that this remains in place.
“The service had recently improved working practices after mistakes had been made when dispensing medicines. They now had two staff to check medicines.” from the report
- 01How are medicines checked now, and how do you monitor that the two-staff checking process is followed every time?
- 02How far has the review of each person's care plan progressed since the inspection?
- 03How do you make sure people can choose their daily activities and take part in the community?
- 04What specialist training do staff receive for each person's health and communication needs?
- 05How do people and their families give feedback, and what changes have been made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings carried over as Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staffing improvements completed since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 January 2017. One inspector met four of the five people living in the home, observed care and moving and handling, and read all five care files. They also checked medicines, staff records, recruitment files, the building and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk plans, appropriate medicines management, clean surroundings and staff who treated people with patience, privacy and respect.
Care plans were up to date and focused on each person's wishes. People were supported with food, health appointments, activities and independence. The home had improved staffing, the environment and care planning since the previous inspection.
Staffing improved
The provider increased staffing after the previous inspection. Inspectors found that staffing levels met people's needs at this visit.
“At this visit we judged that the breach had been met because there were enough staff in place to give people good levels of care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time to communicate and treated them with dignity, privacy and respect.
“They took a relaxed and patient approach and gave people time to express their needs and preferences.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's wishes, goals and changing needs. People were involved in planning their care and choosing activities.
“We read care plans and found them to be up to date and person centred.” from the report
Good safety and medicines systems
Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, recruitment and medicines arrangements. People had regular medicine reviews.
“These were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of appropriately.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The home used internal and external checks and kept action plans when improvements were needed. Inspectors saw changes to staffing, the environment and care delivery.
“We judged that quality was being monitored and actively improved on.” from the report
Supervision records varied
minorStaff supervision had improved, but some records were more detailed than others. The manager was still working to strengthen supervision, mentoring and staff development.
“The notes varied with some records being more in-depth than others.” from the report
Some older records lacked detail
minorA few older records could have contained more information. Inspectors considered this a minor issue and said it had been identified through quality monitoring.
“There were a few older records that might have benefitted from a little more detail but these were minor issues which had been identified through quality monitoring.” from the report
No call bell system
minorThe home did not have a call bell system. The manager was considering assistive technology if people's needs changed.
“The property had never had a call bell system but the registered manager was aware that there might be a need to alert staff as people's needs changed.” from the report
- 01How do you review staffing levels when a person's care or mobility needs change?
- 02What has been done since the inspection to make staff supervision records consistent and detailed?
- 03How are older care and daily records checked to make sure they contain enough detail?
- 04How would a person call for help if their needs changed, given that there was no call bell system?
- 05How are people involved in reviewing their care plans, activities and health appointments?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the inspector met four of the five people living in the home and reviewed all five care files. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2017 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 Gatesgarth
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.