CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gatwick Rise
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Gatwick Rise rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and improvements, but safety checks and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 5, 6 and 12 July 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a professional, observed care and checked care and management records.
The home had enough staff and people were generally receiving kind, respectful care. Staff understood people's needs, including how to support them when anxious. Care plans and risk assessments had improved since the previous inspection, and relatives and staff described positive changes under the new provider.
However, inspectors found risks in the environment, including fire extinguishers that had been tampered with and water temperatures that were not properly risk assessed. Two people's medicines had expired but remained in stock. The systems for checking quality, safety and required notifications were not effective enough.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, as did Safe and Well-led. The other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection because they were not examined during this visit.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate care. Staff protected privacy and dignity and understood people's individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks had also improved since the previous inspection.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care and risk assessments had been updated. People had detailed positive behaviour support plans, and staff understood how to respond when people became anxious.
“Each person had a detailed Positive Behaviour Support Plan.” from the report
Positive changes
The new provider had introduced new systems and was getting outside support to improve staff skills and the culture of the home. Relatives and staff described these changes positively.
“Staff spoke positively about changes at Gatwick House.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousChecks did not identify two fire extinguishers that had been tampered with. Water temperatures were sometimes outside the provider's suggested range, without effective risk assessments to reduce the risk of scalding.
“People were not always protected from the risk of their environment.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousMedicines for two people had expired but remained in stock. The medicines audit had not identified this or another issue involving a short-term course of medicine.
“We found medicines for 2 people which had expired (in accordance with manufacturer guidance) however remained in stock.” from the report
Late notifications
seriousThe provider did not always tell CQC about notifiable incidents without delay. This made it harder for CQC to monitor people's safety at the time of the events.
“The provider did not always notify the Commission without delay of the incidents which occurred” from the report
Communication between staff
needs fixingRelatives were positive about communication with management, but said communication between staff still needed to improve.
“Relatives spoke positively about the communication they received from management, however felt that communication between staff was an area for development.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure fire extinguishers and water temperatures are checked correctly?
- 02How are you now checking that medicines have not expired and that short-term courses have ended safely?
- 03What system is in place to make sure all incidents that must be reported are notified to CQC without delay?
- 04What action has been taken in response to the Regulation 12, Regulation 17 and Regulation 18 breaches?
- 05How are you improving communication between staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but infection control, recruitment and safety checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 October 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about management and care quality. They spoke with one person, relatives, staff and a professional, and reviewed care and management records.
The home had enough staff and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood people's needs, provided kind care and knew how to protect people from abuse. However, staff were not wearing face masks in line with COVID-19 guidance, and recruitment checks were incomplete.
The home had not consistently completed fire, water, infection control and health and safety checks. There was no registered manager from February to September 2022, and quality systems did not identify some of the problems. The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including periods of one-to-one support. Relatives also generally said staffing was sufficient.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs, which included consistent agency staff where necessary.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate care. Staff understood individual needs and protected people's privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Medicines managed
Records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. New medicine management systems had reduced administration errors.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staff understood people's needs
Staff could explain how to support people, including when they became anxious or distressed. Risk plans gave staff guidance on keeping people safe.
“Staff could describe people's risk management strategies and understood how to keep people safe when they become anxious.” from the report
COVID-19 precautions
seriousCare staff were not wearing face masks in line with government guidance. The decision to stop using masks had not been shared with the local health body and had not been supported by a written risk assessment.
“Staff were not following government guidance in relation to PPE usage to protect people from the risk of infection.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousSome required checks were missing, including references from previous care or health employers. Gaps in employment histories were not always explained.
“New staff were not always comprehensively vetted to determine their suitability to provide care to people.” from the report
Weak safety monitoring
seriousFire, water, infection control and health and safety checks were not completed routinely or as required by the home's own policy. These problems had not been found through the provider's monitoring systems.
“Environmental safety audits, including fire and water checks, had not been carried out in accordance with the providers own policy and expectations.” from the report
Care records not fully updated
needs fixingSupport plans had not been fully updated in 2022. Some records contained old or conflicting information, although staff knew the support people needed.
“People's care records sometimes provided conflicting information, however staff understood people's needs and the support they required.” from the report
Management changes
needs fixingThere was no registered manager from February until September 2022. Staff described some difficulties because management arrangements had changed and management had been stretched.
“There was no a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What is the current policy on face masks and how do you record any risk assessment or exception?
- 02Have all required recruitment checks and employment history checks now been completed for current staff?
- 03How often are fire safety, water safety, infection control and general health and safety checks now carried out?
- 04Have all care and support plans been reviewed and old or conflicting information removed?
- 05What progress has been made with the new manager's CQC registration and the provider's action plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection and were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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 Gatwick Rise
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.