CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gifford House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice and systems to protect people from abuse. However, safeguarding was not a clear theme in meetings, and some risk monitoring records were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed, personalised care plans and were supported with food, drink and healthcare. The environment did not yet fully reflect best practice for people living with dementia.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks and responsibilities were not always clear or consistently organised. Some outside professionals said feedback was not always welcomed and communication routes were unclear.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks, record keeping and links with outside professionals.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over three days. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans, appropriate health referrals and improved staff training. People and relatives were mostly positive about the care and cleanliness.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, as it had been at the previous inspection. Management checks were not organised consistently, some care records were incomplete, and relationships with some outside professionals were not always open. The overall rating was Good, which means the service met the CQC standards overall, but important improvements were still needed.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe. The use of agency staff had reduced and the staff team was more consistent.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed, stored safely and accurately recorded. Staff had the required training and competency checks.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs and were updated when those needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and personalised and were amended when people's needs changed.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff described better support, training and morale. Retention had improved and new senior care roles had been introduced.
“There had been a marked improvement in staff training and morale.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingSome monitoring forms, including fluid charts, were not completed correctly. Inspectors found that actions were sometimes recorded elsewhere rather than on the relevant forms.
“Some monitoring forms such as fluid charts were not correctly completed and actions were not clear.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingQuality audits were not carried out under a consistent plan. The registered manager could not always show that checks had identified and addressed problems effectively.
“roles and responsibilities in the management team were not always clear and the planning of quality checks needed improving to ensure consistency.” from the report
Communication with professionals
needs fixingSome outside professionals said it was difficult to raise constructive feedback. It was also not always clear who they should contact.
“Relationships with external stakeholders were not always open and positive when concerns were raised about care.” from the report
Limited activities and stimulation
minorInspectors saw little activity during two visits. One activity coordinator was stretched across the large service, although another coordinator was being recruited.
“We did not observe much activity to support people's wellbeing during our 2 visits to the service.” from the report
- 01What changes has the new electronic monitoring system made to care records and management checks?
- 02How do you make sure safeguarding is discussed regularly across the home?
- 03What activities are now available, and has the additional activity coordinator been recruited?
- 04What improvements have been made to the environment for people living with dementia?
- 05How can relatives and outside professionals give feedback, and who should they contact?
The inspection looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not separately rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 outbreak response.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using testing, personal protective equipment, isolation, shielding and social distancing measures. They also found that the premises were clean and arranged to reduce infection risks.
The home supported contact with families through video and telephone calls. Visiting arrangements were in place when safe, including arrangements for end-of-life visits.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Testing arrangements
The home was following government guidance on whole-home testing, including rapid testing and weekly staff testing.
“The registered manager was following the government's guidance on whole home testing for people and staff.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and controlling infection.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean and suitable environment
The layout and hygiene arrangements were designed to support social distancing and reduce infection risks.
“The environment was easy to keep clean to minimise the risk of infection.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in touch with relatives by video and telephone, with visiting allowed when safe.
“People were being supported to maintain contact with their families by video and telephone calls” from the report
End-of-life visits
The home had arrangements to allow family visits at the end of a person's life while keeping people safe.
“The service enabled people to have end of life visits from family ensuring everyone was kept safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your testing arrangements for residents and staff changed since this inspection?
- 02What are your current rules for family visits, including visits at the end of life?
- 03How do you support residents to isolate safely when this is needed?
- 04How do you make sure personal protective equipment is used safely by staff and visitors?
- 05How do you keep the infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Gifford House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.