CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gorselands Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, infection control, equipment and accidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. A rating from a previous comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. A rating from a previous comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. A rating from a previous comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found consistent management, open communication and audits that were used to improve the service. Staff and relatives were mostly positive about the management team.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Gorselands Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger leadership, but some staff said staffing could be tight.
This was a planned inspection following the previous Requires Improvement rating. One inspector reviewed care and medicines records, staff recruitment and management records, and spoke with six staff members. Relatives were also contacted for feedback.
The home was found to be safe. Risks were assessed, equipment and premises were maintained, medicines were managed safely, and infection control was strong. Accidents and incidents were reviewed so that lessons could be shared.
The home was also found to be well-led. Staff and relatives were mostly positive about the management team, and audits were being used to improve care. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement, published in November 2019, to Good.
Safe care
Risks were reviewed when people's needs changed, and steps were taken to reduce the chance of harm.
“Risks were assessed and reviewed at least every six months or when people's needs changed.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records, storage and administration were checked and found to be safe. An electronic system helped staff give the right medicine at the right time.
“Medicines were safely managed. At our last inspection we made recommendations to improve medicines management.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
The home was clean and had measures in place to prevent and manage COVID-19 and other infections.
“The service was very clean and there were no malodours.” from the report
Learning and improvement
Audits had become part of everyday practice and were used to identify improvements.
“Audits, introduced just before our last inspection, had become embedded into day-to-day practice and were used to analyse and improve service provision.” from the report
Some inductions were shortened
needs fixingDuring the busiest part of the pandemic, experienced care staff who were newly recruited did not always complete the usual full induction. New staff without caring experience did complete it.
“Staff usually received an intensive induction however during the peak of the pandemic, if experienced care staff had been recruited, they did not participate in full inductions to enable them to commence in their duties sooner.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough care staff on duty when people need more help, such as during dementia-related challenges or when someone is very unwell?
- 02Which staff members recruited during the pandemic did not complete the full induction, and how was their training and competence checked?
- 03What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
- 04What improvements to the premises were put on hold during the COVID-19 lockdown, and have they now restarted?
- 05How are you developing links with the local community and providing activities and contact for residents?
This was a planned inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 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.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but safety records and leadership were not consistently strong.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were generally treated kindly, supported to make choices, and offered personalised care, activities and help with health needs. Inspectors also found that medicines were administered safely and that people were generally happy with the food.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Records about safeguarding, accidents, incidents and medicines audits were limited or unclear. Some care plans lacked important details, infection control practices needed improvement, and staff had not received regular supervision. A new manager had started making changes, but inspectors said there was only limited assurance about safety and that people faced an increased risk of harm.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, and inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and using people's preferred names. Staff understood how to protect privacy and dignity during personal care.
“We saw staff speaking to people with respect and all staff knew people by their names and used their preferred names when speaking with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, likes and dislikes. People were involved in choices about food, activities and how they received information.
“Peoples care plans held information about their life histories and had clearly been written with or following discussion with people and their relatives.” from the report
Activities and outings
The home provided a range of daily activities, individual well-being support and frequent outings using its minibus.
“People had frequent outings as the provider had its own minibus.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
Staff worked with health professionals and identified specific health risks. Chefs prepared meals from scratch and adapted food for people's dietary needs and preferences.
“On admission to the home, people would sit with a chef and the registered nurses so that a list of their favourite foods as well as likes and dislikes and nutritional needs could be made.” from the report
Incomplete safety records
seriousThere were few records showing how safeguarding concerns and accidents had been dealt with. New forms and processes had been introduced, but the earlier lack of records limited inspectors' assurance.
“Limited records were available to view during the inspection however the manager had set up new forms and there was a clear process for dealing with future concerns.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingMedicines were administered safely, but audits were unclear and topical medicines records did not show clearly what had been applied. Inspectors recommended reviewing these procedures.
“There were also two days not signed and no record as to whether the medicines were refused or not needed.” from the report
Care plan gaps
needs fixingSome care plans did not include important details about equipment, continence products or repositioning. Inspectors recommended reviewing care plans and improving the management of time-sensitive care.
“We recommend that care plans are reviewed, missing information is added, and a process is developed to manage time sensitive tasks such as repositioning.” from the report
Weak oversight before new manager
needs fixingQuality monitoring and staff support had not been consistent before the new manager started. Staff had not received regular planned supervision.
“The nominated individual had, due to unavoidable circumstances, needed to step back from their role which had been a very proactive one within the service.” from the report
Earlier concerns not clearly investigated
seriousThe report describes concerns about a person being supported to eat in an inappropriate way and being roughly handled. It was not clear whether these incidents had been investigated.
“It was not clear if an investigation had taken place as the new manager had found no evidence of the incident being reported.” from the report
- 01What evidence can you show that the new medicines audits are now completed regularly and that topical medicines records are clear for each person?
- 02How do you check that care plans include the correct equipment, continence products and repositioning instructions?
- 03What changes have been made to infection control, including staff clothing, shared slings and hand hygiene training?
- 04How often do staff now receive supervision, and how do you check that all staff have the training needed for their roles?
- 05How are safeguarding concerns, accidents, complaints and allegations about poor handling investigated and recorded?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the home, care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous rating was Good, published on 6 January 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Gorselands Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.