CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gayton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were considered safe and medicines were managed properly. However, inspectors found that staffing numbers were not always sufficient, particularly during the night.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's health, dietary and communication needs were assessed. Staff had not yet received annual appraisals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain their dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, preferences and communication styles. People took part in activities they chose, although complaints records were not always easy for the manager to access.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a new manager who had good oversight, carried out monthly audits and encouraged staff, people and families to share ideas.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Gayton House rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but staffing at night and advocacy support needed attention.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered with the CQC. It was unannounced and took place on 21 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with respect, supported to make choices and helped to develop independence. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and care plans were detailed and regularly updated.
There were some points to improve. Staffing levels were not always enough at night. The home was asked to seek guidance about independent advocacy. Complaints records were not always easy for the manager to access, and staff had not yet received annual appraisals.
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect and understanding their individual communication styles, preferences and histories.
“We saw that staff treated people with the utmost respect.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Care plans explained how each person wanted and needed their medicines given.
“People had care plans which described how they wanted and needed their medicines to be administered.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans included people's needs, interests and preferences. They were updated when people's needs changed.
“People's needs, and preferences were detailed in their care plans.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, training, supervision and competency checks to help them carry out their roles.
“There was a clear induction programme for new staff to follow which included shadow shifts and practical competency checks in line with the Care Certificate.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager used regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and staff said they felt supported.
“The manager completed monthly audits across all areas of the service to monitor the quality of the service being delivered.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousInspectors found that people were not always supported by enough staff at night. The home should explain how it makes sure staffing reflects people's needs during these hours.
“As mentioned earlier people were not always supported by enough numbers of staff in particular during the night.” from the report
Independent advocacy
needs fixingThe report recommended getting guidance and support about advocacy for people who had no family input or wanted to use an independent advocate.
“We recommend the provider explores guidance and support around advocacy services for people with learning disabilities.” from the report
Staff appraisals
minorStaff received supervision, but none had yet received an annual appraisal. The report noted that no staff had worked at the home for more than one year.
“We found that so far staff didn't receive an annual appraisal.” from the report
Complaints records
minorComplaints had been dealt with, but the records were not always easy for the manager to access. The manager was changing how complaints were recorded and stored.
“We saw that complaints were not always easy to be accessed by the manager.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty at night, and how do you check that this is enough for each person's needs?
- 02Have applications for the required DoLS authorisations for all relevant people now been completed?
- 03What independent advocacy support is available for people who have no family input or who want an independent advocate?
- 04How are complaints now recorded and stored, and can the manager access them promptly?
- 05Have staff since received annual appraisals, as well as regular supervision?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, with care, accommodation, records, staffing and management systems examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 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.
Every inspection of Gayton House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 October 2018.
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 Harrow
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 £1,330 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult 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.