CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gills Top
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control measures. They asked the home to reduce clutter and review the colour coding used for cleaning materials and equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control measures but asked the home to improve clutter and cleaning colour coding.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about most areas. These included visitors, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
There were two areas to review. Some rooms and areas had too many items displayed or stored, which could make cleaning less effective. The home was also asked to review its colour coding for cleaning materials and equipment.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a standard overall or key-question rating.
Visitor controls
The registered manager reviewed the visiting policy when there was a local outbreak and checked it against national guidance.
“The registered manager consistently reviewed processes in place in line with national guidance, to ensure that visitors did not introduce and spread Covid-19.” from the report
Support with social contact
Staff helped residents maintain social and emotional wellbeing through calls, online contact, letters, cards, social media and activities.
“Alternative forms of maintaining social contact were in place including regular telephone calls, online catchups, cards, letters and the use of closed social media groups to post general updates and information.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff followed government guidance and there were enough supplies of personal protective equipment for staff and visitors.
“Staff followed government guidelines in relation to PPE. The home had sufficient supplies of PPE for staff and visitors.” from the report
Clean and well maintained
Inspectors found the home clean, well maintained and without unpleasant smells.
“The care home was clean, well maintained and odour free.” from the report
Clutter could affect cleaning
needs fixingInspectors asked the home to review items displayed around the home and stored in some rooms. They said clutter could make cleaning less effective.
“Where surfaces are cluttered, this may impede the effectiveness of the cleaning regime.” from the report
Cleaning colour coding
needs fixingThe registered manager was asked to review the colour coding used for cleaning materials and equipment against national guidance.
“The registered manager was also asked to review with the provider, the colour coding for cleaning materials and equipment in line with the National colour coding for cleaning materials and equipment, (Department of Health, 2013).” from the report
- 01What changes were made to reduce the number of items displayed or stored in rooms after the inspection?
- 02Has the colour coding for cleaning materials and equipment been reviewed and changed where needed?
- 03How do you now check that clutter does not affect the cleaning regime?
- 04How are visits managed if there is a local infection outbreak?
- 05How do residents continue to keep in contact with family and take part in activities?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a standard overall rating or ratings for the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but medicines storage needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two visits in December 2018 and January 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints, accidents, audits and the building. They also spoke with people living at the home, staff and a healthcare professional, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found up-to-date care plans, enough staff, safe recruitment overall, suitable training, good support with health and nutrition, kind care and activities based on people's interests.
There were some points to improve. Medicines were not always stored appropriately. One staff file did not contain two promised references, and the home's audit had not identified the medicines storage issue. The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in June 2016.
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean, free from unpleasant smells and well maintained. Fire safety checks and personal evacuation plans were in place.
“We found the home to be clean, odour-free and well-maintained.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and warm interactions. Staff supported people in a dignified and individual way.
“We observed positive, friendly and warm interactions between staff and people living at Gills Top.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and choices. Staff knew what people liked and how they wanted to be supported.
“Care plans were person-centred and tailored around the needs of the person.” from the report
Activities and engagement
People were encouraged to join different activities, with an activities coordinator arranging things around their interests.
“There was a dedicated activities co-ordinator in post who supported people with a range of fun and stimulating activities.” from the report
Medicines storage
needs fixingSome medicines were left out, one ointment was on a trolley and the controlled drugs cabinet was full. Inspectors recommended reviewing best practice for storage.
“We recommend the service review best practice for medicines storage.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorOne staff file did not contain two of three declared references, and the remaining reference was handwritten. The manager accepted this and said the process would be reviewed.
“Two of these references had not been received and the third was hand written.” from the report
Audit did not find medicines issue
needs fixingThe home's audits covered medicines, but the medicines audit had not identified the storage problems found during the inspection.
“However, a comprehensive audit of medicines would have identified the concerns we raised around the storage area for medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines storage since inspectors found medicines left out and the controlled drugs cabinet full?
- 02How do you now check that every new staff member has the required references before starting work?
- 03How often are medicines audits completed, and how do you make sure they identify storage problems?
- 04How are people's personal choices, activities and care preferences recorded and reviewed?
- 05How have people's views and complaints led to changes since this inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the home was inspected across two visits. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2019 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 Gills Top
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.