CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Goldenhill Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management. The provider also told inspectors that measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection control arrangements that gave them assurance during a COVID-19 outbreak.
The home provides nursing, personal care and accommodation for up to 44 older people. There were 36 people living there on the inspection day, including some people living with dementia.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 08 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control during COVID-19 outbreaks, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness and managing outbreaks. They also found staff had received infection control training and that the home carried out monthly infection control audits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a rated judgement of the home overall or of the other areas of care.
Infection control training
Several staff received intensive training from an infection control nurse. They then shared their knowledge and observed infection control practice among other staff.
“Several staff members received intensive infection control training from an infection control nurse.” from the report
Safer visiting arrangements
The conservatory provided a separate place for visitors to test for COVID-19 and leave safely if they tested positive.
“The conservatory was attached to the main building and had a separate entrance in and out of the building.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People who tested positive with COVID-19 could keep in touch with important people through calls and window visits.
“People who were positive with COVID-19 continued to keep in touch with others who were important to them through telephone calls, video calls and window visits.” from the report
Regular infection control checks
The deputy manager completed monthly infection control audits, with the findings and recommendations displayed in reception.
“The deputy manager carried out monthly infection control audits.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures affecting staffing levels and people living in the home now?
- 02How often are infection control audits carried out, and what changes have been made as a result of recent findings?
- 03How would visiting work if there were another COVID-19 outbreak, including for essential care givers and people receiving end-of-life care?
- 04How are visitors and new residents tested and kept safe when entering the home?
- 05How would the home help my relative stay in contact with us if they tested positive for COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during COVID-19 outbreaks, with questions about staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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, April 2019
Goldenhill Nursing Home was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements sustained since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 March 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe. Medicines were managed properly, risks were assessed, staffing levels were sufficient and staff understood safeguarding procedures. People received care that met their needs, including support with food, health appointments, communication and decision-making.
People described kind and respectful care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities and follow their beliefs. The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had previously been rated Requires Improvement in all areas and had been in special measures, but the inspectors found that improvements had been sustained.
Medicines managed safely
The inspectors found that medicines, including creams, were recorded, stored and disposed of correctly. Staff were trained and people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines, including prescribed topical creams were recorded, stored and disposed of correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Families were made welcome and people were offered choices about their daily lives.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, beliefs, preferences and goals. Staff supported activities, communication needs and individual interests.
“People received personalised care from staff that knew them well and understood their individual needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
The provider and manager had developed clearer checks on quality and safety. The inspectors found that earlier improvements had been sustained.
“Governance systems were clear and embedded in the running of the service.” from the report
Leadership improvements need to continue
minorThe inspectors said some strengths in leadership had not yet been fully embedded and sustained. This was why an Outstanding rating was not given for this area.
“There were characteristics of outstanding leadership however, these needed to be further embedded and sustained to consistently result in positive outcomes for people before we can consider a rating of outstanding for this domain.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs increase or staff are absent?
- 02How are medicines, including creams and as-required medicines, checked and recorded now?
- 03What further work is being done to sustain the leadership and quality improvements mentioned in the report?
- 04How will you support my relative's personal interests, beliefs, communication needs and activities?
- 05How are people's end of life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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 Goldenhill Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 October 2012.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.