CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gloucester House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People's care risks were well managed, and staffing and recruitment were safe. However, inspectors found environmental and infection control risks, and medicines records were not always completed correctly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to make choices, access health professionals, eat and drink well, and receive care from trained staff. Their care needs were assessed and reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, and staff supported independence and important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to individual needs and people chose how to spend their time. The home supported hobbies, activities, communication and contact with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management oversight and quality checks did not identify several problems. This led to a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but weaknesses in safety checks, medicines records and management oversight.
This was the home's first inspection since it registered. It was an unannounced planned visit on 02 June 2021. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People were described as safe, respected and involved in their care. The home provided good support with health needs, food, independence, relationships and activities. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
Inspectors found some safety risks, including obstructed stairs, open communal-area doors, a missing window restrictor and incorrect disposal of used protective equipment. Medicine administration records were not always complete.
Management checks had not found these problems, and some required safety documents were not available. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement. The provider was told to send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return for a further inspection.
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm relationships and found that staff knew people well.
“People had developed positive relationships with staff. Staff knew people well and demonstrated a genuine interest in people through their conversations.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives. Staff helped them develop life skills and supported positive risks.
“Their (people's) voice is what matters. We plan our day around what they want to do and when they want to do it.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were tailored, reviewed with people and gave staff information about individual needs. People could take part in interests and activities they chose.
“Care plans had been reviewed in partnership with people and contained the information staff needed to provide personalised care.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received an induction, ongoing training and support through individual and team meetings. Inspectors found that staff had the skills and knowledge needed for their roles.
“Staff developed and refreshed their knowledge and skills through an initial induction, which included the Care Certificate followed by a programme of on-going training.” from the report
Environmental safety risks
seriousInspectors found communal-area doors propped open, items obstructing the stairs and a first-floor window without a restrictor. These problems could have put people and staff at risk, especially in a fire or through a fall.
“At the start of the inspection visit we saw doors to communal areas were propped open and items had been left on the staircase, including a mirror, which caused an obstruction.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingPeople received their medicines from trained staff, but medicine administration records, including records for as-needed medicines, were not always completed correctly. Medicine audits had not found the errors.
“However, medicine administration records (MARS) had not always been completed in line with the providers policy and procedure including records for medicines prescribed as and when required (PRN).” from the report
Infection control practice
needs fixingUsed gloves, aprons and face masks were not disposed of in line with current guidance during the visit. The visiting procedure was also not followed correctly when the inspector arrived.
“However, used PPE had not been disposed of correctly by staff in line with current guidance during our visit.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality and safety systems did not identify several problems. The provider also could not show all required equipment safety checks, including the gas safety certificate, and had not submitted its required information return on time.
“The provider's systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not effective.” from the report
- 01Have the obstructed stairs, propped-open doors and missing first-floor window restrictor all been corrected, and how are these risks now checked?
- 02How do you make sure medicine administration records, including as-needed medicines, are completed accurately every time?
- 03Where are the current gas safety certificate and other equipment safety records kept, and how often are they checked?
- 04What changes have you made to the quality monitoring system since the breach of Regulation 17?
- 05How are used gloves, aprons and face masks disposed of, and how do you check that staff follow the infection control procedure?
This was the home's first unannounced inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 Gloucester House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 May 2019.
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 Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.