CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gaywood Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Actions identified in an April 2023 fire risk assessment had not been completed before the inspection. Two right-to-work files were also incomplete, although the missing information was gathered and the files updated during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and recorded. Staff received training, people were supported with eating and drinking, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's communication, choices, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised support and were helped to maintain relationships, follow interests and take part in community activities. The manager responded to concerns and relatives felt able to raise issues.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, person-centred culture, with good communication between staff. However, the manager had not addressed the fire risk assessment actions before the inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited the home on 5 December 2023 and the human resources department on 12 December 2023. They spoke with people, care workers, managers and relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because actions from an April 2023 fire risk assessment had not been completed, and some recruitment records were incomplete.
Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and supported to make choices, stay connected with others and take part in activities. The home was clean and had enough staff. The manager took action during and after the inspection to address the safety and recruitment issues.
Kind care
Inspectors saw attentive and compassionate interactions. People's privacy and dignity were respected.
“We saw care workers and staff interact in an attentive and caring manner with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, communication preferences, goals and interests. People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in relevant activities.
“People were supported to maintain social relationships, to follow interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's care needs, including two-to-one support. Medicines were administered by trained staff and records were accurate.
“The numbers of care workers available and their skills matched the care needs of people at the service.” from the report
Fire safety actions delayed
seriousThe home had not completed recommendations from an April 2023 fire risk assessment before the inspection. Inspectors said this increased the risk that people could be harmed, although they found no evidence that anyone had been harmed.
“We found recommendations following a recent fire risk assessment in April 2023 had not been implemented.” from the report
Repairs and decoration
minorSome parts of the home needed repair or updating, including ceiling patches, chipped plasterwork and loose bathroom tiles. Repairs had been arranged.
“The décor of the home required updating.” from the report
- 01Have all actions from the April 2023 fire risk assessment now been completed, and when was this checked?
- 02What arrangements are in place to keep copies of DBS certificates and complete right-to-work checks in staff files?
- 03What repairs have been completed to the ceiling, plasterwork and loose bathroom tiles?
- 04How are staffing levels and skills checked when people need two-to-one support or attend appointments?
- 05How are people's end-of-life wishes being updated and shared with health professionals?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with a visit to the home on 5 December 2023 and a visit to the human resources department on 12 December 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 2024 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, July 2017
Gaywood Street was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 9 June 2017 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with people, staff, the registered manager and an advocate. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, meeting notes, complaints and quality checks. They also contacted four health and social care professionals.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, clear risk assessments and safe medicines processes. People received support with eating, drinking, healthcare, communication and emergency planning. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in May 2015, so this inspection found that the rating remained Good.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had guidance about risks such as falls, bathing, choking and swallowing.
“Staff were deployed in numbers sufficient to meet people's needs and maintain their safety.” from the report
Support for health needs
Staff followed professional advice about eating, drinking, exercises and healthcare. People also had hospital passports with important health information.
“People had hospital passports which were pocket sized documents providing information about people's medicines, communication, allergies and personal care.” from the report
Respect and relationships
People were supported to make choices, build daily living skills and keep in touch with family and friends. Staff respected privacy and dignity.
“People were supported to maintain the relationships that were important to them.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people's interests and included music, swimming, public transport, cafés, religious activities and social visits.
“People were supported to engage in the activities of their choice.” from the report
Leadership and checking
The registered manager was well regarded. Regular meetings and provider quality visits were used to review care and follow up actions.
“Senior managers from the provider's office undertook quality assurance visits to the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, especially if they do not use speech?
- 02What guidance and staff training are in place for my relative's eating, drinking or swallowing needs?
- 03How would you support my relative to maintain family and friendship relationships?
- 04Which activities could my relative take part in, and how would you match these to their interests?
- 05How are medicines, risk assessments and care plans reviewed when a person's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care records, medicines, staff files, meetings, complaints, quality checks and feedback from people and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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 Gaywood Street
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2011.
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 Southwark
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 £1,210 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“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.