CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Golden Gorse Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to report concerns. Staffing, medicines and general safety checks were satisfactory, but some risk assessments were out of date and night staffing was being monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and responsive to people's individual routines. However, there was limited evidence that people and their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an approachable manager, regular checks and a positive culture. Formal involvement in care planning and the development of outside activities needed to improve.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but care planning and positive risk-taking were not always well recorded.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 December 2022. One inspector visited the home, and an expert by experience spoke by phone with four relatives or friends. Inspectors also spoke with people and staff and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, safety records and audits.
People told inspectors they felt safe and could follow their own routines. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported them to make choices. The home was clean, well maintained and had a happy, family-like atmosphere. Staffing was generally sufficient and staff turnover was low.
The main shortfalls were limited records showing that people and their representatives helped plan and review care. Risk assessments did not always reflect changing needs or encourage positive risk-taking and independence. The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe, Caring and Well-led. Effective and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors saw friendly, compassionate interactions and staff who understood people's individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and routine
People could make day-to-day choices, follow their own routines and use their rooms and communal areas freely.
“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
Consistent staff team
Staffing was generally sufficient and staff turnover was low. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well.
“Staff turnover was very low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Happy home environment
People appeared relaxed and included. The home had a strong sense of belonging and close relationships between people.
“There was a very happy atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Care planning involvement
needs fixingRecords did not clearly show that people or their representatives helped plan and review care or set future goals. The manager said this would be addressed.
“There was limited evidence that people were involved in planning and reviewing their care plans.” from the report
Independence and positive risk-taking
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not updated when people's needs changed. Care reviews did not always encourage people to try new things or become more independent.
“Risk assessments were not carried out to promote positive risk taking to support people to be more independent.” from the report
Night staffing review
needs fixingThe manager was monitoring night staffing levels after a relative raised a concern. Families should ask what the review concluded.
“They told us they were currently monitoring night staffing levels.” from the report
PPE practice
needs fixingStaff wore protective equipment during personal care but not in communal areas. Inspectors said this was not in line with government guidance at the time, and a risk assessment was provided the next day.
“They did not wear face masks when in communal areas.” from the report
- 01How are people and their representatives now involved in writing and reviewing care plans?
- 02How do you record each person's goals and support them to take positive risks and build independence?
- 03What was the outcome of the review of night staffing levels?
- 04What is the current policy for staff wearing face masks in communal areas?
- 05How are outside activities made more stimulating and engaging, especially after the day centre closed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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, August 2019
Golden Gorse Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and environment improvements needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 July 2019. One inspector met all eight people living at the home, spoke with five people and four staff, observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff meeting records and safety records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People appeared happy and safe. Staff knew them well, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities, work and community life.
Inspectors found a stable and well-trained staff team, safe medicine systems and good links with health professionals. The home was well managed, but some bedrooms needed redecoration. Capacity assessments about taking medicines and plans for end-of-life care also needed attention.
People felt safe and cared for
Inspectors found a warm atmosphere where people appeared happy, comfortable and well cared for.
“People lived in a happy home where they felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Staff knew people well
A stable, trained staff team understood people's routines, preferences and changing needs.
“People were supported by a stable staff team who knew them well and knew their preferred routines and needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices and develop skills. Staff used the least restrictive approach and supported independence.
“People were able to make choices about what they did each day and how they spent their time.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had strong relationships and could take part in day services, voluntary work, social events and community activities.
“People had opportunities to take part in a variety of activities including attending day centres, taking part in voluntary work and accessing community facilities.” from the report
Open management
The home had systems to monitor standards, gather people's views and support ongoing improvement.
“People lived in a home which was well managed and had systems to monitor standards of care and ensure on-going improvements.” from the report
Some bedrooms needed redecoration
minorInspectors found that some rooms looked tired and said redecoration would improve the environment.
“Some rooms we saw were tired looking and would benefit from redecoration to make sure they promoted a pleasant environment for people.” from the report
Medicine capacity assessments
needs fixingEveryone had medicines administered by staff, but the home had not completed capacity assessments about people's ability to take medicines.
“However, we noted that no capacity assessments regarding people's abilities regarding taking medicines had been carried out.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingSome plans recorded arrangements after death, but there were no guidelines about the care people wanted if they became very unwell or reached the end of life.
“However, there were no guidelines for the care people would like to receive, or where they would like to be, if they became very unwell and at the end of their lives.” from the report
Building design
minorThe home had not originally been designed in line with the principles of Registering the Right Support. Inspectors said staff were applying these principles in daily care.
“The service had been opened some years ago and therefore had not been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Have capacity assessments about my relative's ability to take medicines now been completed?
- 02How do you record and review each person's wishes for care if they become very unwell or reach the end of life?
- 03Which bedrooms needed redecoration, and has this work now been completed?
- 04How will my relative be supported to make choices, gain skills and maintain independence?
- 05How do you involve families, advocates and health professionals in care reviews and appointments?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that considered all five CQC questions and looked at both the building and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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 Golden Gorse Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Golden Gorse Residential Care Home →
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Golden Gorse Residential Care Home →
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
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.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.