CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gordon House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, suitable medicines systems and regular safety checks. PRN medicine protocols were not stored with the medicine administration records, although the manager said plans were in place to change this.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with their mental health needs, dietary needs, consent and access to external healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, respectful and supportive. People had choices about their daily lives and were helped to build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, life histories and rehabilitation goals. People were supported with activities, education and community links, and complaints were handled appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits covered areas including medicines, care plans, safety and infection control. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was positive, but there was not yet a process for gathering feedback from visiting professionals.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two minor areas for improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They looked at care records, medicines records, recruitment files, policies and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, kind care and detailed care plans.
People were supported to make choices and take part in community activities, education and healthcare appointments. The home had systems for checking quality and responding to complaints.
The inspectors noted that some PRN medicine instructions were not kept with the medicine administration records. They also noted that the home did not yet collect feedback from visiting professionals. Neither issue changed the Good rating.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and appropriate checks had been completed before staff were employed.
“Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff on duty to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff were trained and their competence had been checked, including support for people who wished to self-medicate.
“Medication was managed safely and was administered by staff who were adequately trained.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, routines and rehabilitation goals. People were involved in planning their care and choosing their key workers.
“Care records contained detailed information to identify people's requirements and preferences in relation to their care.” from the report
Community activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, education, healthcare appointments and community life, helping them develop confidence and independence.
“A 'community connections worker' was employed by the service to support people take part in activities in the local community.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed friendly interactions, and people and relatives spoke positively about the support they received.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. There was plenty of chatter, banter and laughter.” from the report
PRN medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines taken when needed were not kept with the medicine administration records. The manager said they planned to make them easier for staff to follow.
“PRN protocols were not stored with people's MAR charts.” from the report
Feedback from visiting professionals
minorThe home collected feedback from people and relatives but did not yet have a process for feedback from visiting professionals. The manager said this would be developed.
“We noted that there wasn't a process in place to gather feedback from visiting professionals.” from the report
- 01Have PRN medicine protocols been placed with people's medicine administration records, and how do staff use them now?
- 02What process is now used to gather and act on feedback from visiting healthcare professionals?
- 03How are people involved in setting and reviewing their rehabilitation goals?
- 04How does the home support people who want to self-medicate safely?
- 05What community activities, education or employment support would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; the previous inspection in June 2015 also rated the service Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 2018 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 Gordon House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.