CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gilby House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staff were safely recruited, and there were enough staff on duty. Medicines, infection control and risk assessments were managed safely, although the home needed to improve how it recorded lessons from incidents and falls.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had suitable training, people were supported with food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had quality monitoring systems, but they were inconsistent and did not always capture important information. Handover records and evidence of learning from incidents needed improvement.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Gilby House Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective care but management checks and records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with two people, 11 staff members, seven relatives and one health professional. They reviewed five care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were safely recruited, staffing levels were suitable, medicines were managed safely, and staff had the training needed for their roles.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Quality checks did not always identify problems, handover records did not always show important actions, and there was limited evidence that lessons were learned from accidents, incidents and falls. The overall rating remained Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people were safe and well looked after. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to raise concerns.
“People were happy with the care they received, they felt safe and well looked after.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and checked as competent to administer medicines.
“Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and destroyed if they were no longer required.” from the report
Suitable care and training
People's needs, preferences and wishes were assessed and reviewed. Staff received induction, ongoing training and support to meet people's individual needs.
“People's needs, preferences and wishes were effectively assessed, and care and support regularly reviewed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used suitable infection prevention measures, including safe visiting arrangements, testing, cleaning and protective equipment.
“We were assured the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Quality checks missed issues
needs fixingThe home had monitoring systems, but these were inconsistent and did not always capture the information needed to manage quality and safety.
“However, these were inconsistent and did not always capture the required information.” from the report
Handover records were incomplete
needs fixingHandover records did not always show the actions needed and completed, so staff records did not always reflect people's current needs.
“Records did not always evidence important information about people using the service.” from the report
Limited learning from incidents
needs fixingThere was little evidence that the home had recorded and shared lessons from accidents, incidents or falls. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its systems.
“There was minimal evidence to support learning lessons from accidents, incidents or falls which had occurred at the service.” from the report
- 01How are you improving quality checks so they identify and address problems consistently?
- 02How do you make sure handover records include every action needed for a person's current care?
- 03How are accidents, incidents and falls reviewed, and where can we see the lessons recorded?
- 04What progress has been made on the improvement plan since the inspection?
- 05What are the current ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 July 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had improved its safety and management systems after the previous inspection. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a health professional, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, regular risk assessments and safe medicine systems. The home was clean and had suitable infection control measures. People told inspectors they felt safe and well looked after.
The home’s management and quality checks had improved. The previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches of Regulations 12 and 17. At this inspection, the home was no longer in breach and the overall rating improved to Good.
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had suitable training and recruitment checks were completed.
“There were enough staff on duty who were provided with the appropriate training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Risk management
Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly. They gave staff clear guidance about the support people needed.
“Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to minimise risks.” from the report
Medicines
People received their medicines safely and on time. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and medicine audits were carried out.
“Medicines management was audited regularly with systems in place for investigating any potential medicine errors.” from the report
Quality checks
The manager used audits, incident reviews and an improvement plan to identify and act on issues.
“A clear auditing system was in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you checking that the improvements made after the previous breaches of Regulations 12 and 17 are being maintained?
- 02What recent audits have been completed on medicines, incidents, care plans and infection control, and what actions followed?
- 03What are the current ratings and findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive care, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 04How do you decide when extra staff are needed for people who require additional support?
- 05How are people and relatives’ suggestions recorded and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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 Gilby House Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.