CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gloucester House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and appropriate infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- 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?
- Good
- Managers had clear oversight, acted on audit findings and supported an open culture. People, relatives and staff were involved in developing the service.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Gloucester House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support, with enough staff and improved medicines systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 November 2022. Two inspectors spoke with three people living there, managers and support workers. They also checked care records, staff recruitment and training records, medicines arrangements, and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, involved in decisions about their lives and supported by enough staff. Medicines systems had improved since the previous inspection, and infection control arrangements were suitable.
The home was also rated Good for being well-led. Inspectors found managers had a clear view of the service, acted on audit findings and involved people and relatives in decisions. This report only inspected Safe and Well-led. The other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019.
Personalised support
Staff focused on people's abilities and supported them to make choices, take part in activities and live meaningful lives.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful life.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff, including support for one-to-one activities and visits when people wanted them.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Improved medicines arrangements
The provider had addressed the previous issue with instructions for medicines given only when needed. Staff were trained and medicines were reviewed regularly.
“Following our last inspection, the provider has ensured all protocols for administering as and when required medicines are up to date and accurate.” from the report
Active management oversight
Managers used audits covering areas such as medicines, risks, fire safety and staff training, and acted on issues promptly.
“Systems and processes in place ensured issues identified through the auditing process were actioned in a timely manner.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and meet my relative's specific health, communication and personal care needs, given that Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit?
- 02How do you check that instructions for medicines given only when needed remain accurate and up to date?
- 03How will my relative receive one-to-one support for activities, visits and choices that matter to them?
- 04How are risks managed while keeping restrictions on my relative's freedom to a minimum?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews, feedback and decisions about the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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, November 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with six people, staff and a relative. Records, medicines, recruitment files and management systems were also checked.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities at home and in the community.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that one medicine was given outside the written protocol, although it remained within safe limits. The protocol was reviewed after the inspection. Some records for non-prescription medicines were also not always correct.
Kind relationships
People liked the staff and inspectors saw warm, friendly interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and how to reassure them when they were anxious.
“People told us they liked the staff who supported them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their daily lives. Staff supported choice and used the least restrictive approach.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests;” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities at home and in the wider community.
“Plans for activities and fun and interesting things to do were displayed for each person.” from the report
Good understanding of people's needs
Staff understood people's communication, health, dietary and behaviour support needs. Care records matched what staff told inspectors.
“Staff members were able to tell us about people's healthcare needs. Care records matched what we were told.” from the report
Medicine protocol not followed
seriousA medicine prescribed for use when needed was given in an amount above the written agreement because staff believed it was required. Inspectors said this created an increased risk of harm, although the amount remained within safe limits.
“Medication prescribed on an as and when needed basis [PRN] was not always administered to a person in line with the written protocols drawn up with a medical professional for the person concerned.” from the report
Medicine records were not always accurate
needs fixingRecords for non-prescription medicines did not always match what had been given. The home's checks had not found the medicine shortfall before the inspection.
“We found a discrepancy in the homely remedy medication where by medicines were not always recorded correctly.” from the report
Audits missed a medicine issue
needs fixingThe home carried out medicine audits, but these did not identify the problem with a medicine given when needed.
“However, these had not identified a timing issue with a person's medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the revised protocol for medicines given when needed?
- 02How do you now check that staff give these medicines at the right time and in the agreed amount?
- 03How are non-prescription medicines recorded and checked for accuracy?
- 04What action is taken if a medicine record does not match the medicine remaining?
- 05How do you make sure audits identify medicine problems promptly?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, support, the premises and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Gloucester House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.