CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gower Gardens Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risks and medicines, although one person's medicine had not been taken before the record was signed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received timely support from healthcare professionals and staff had training and competency checks. Inspectors found delays with one deprivation of liberty application and some gaps in dental checks.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The home offered activities, supported relationships and responded to complaints in a timely way.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the managers. However, governance systems did not reliably monitor legal applications, dental checks and notifications to CQC.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Gower Gardens Residential Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and rated well-led Requires Improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 20 and 21 April 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People were generally kept safe, supported by kind staff, involved in decisions and offered activities and personalised care. Staff training, recruitment, infection control and support with healthcare were also found to be good.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found delays with two notifications to CQC, one delayed legal application for a person's deprivation of liberty, and missed annual dental checks for some people. The management team acted quickly during the inspection to address these issues.
People felt safe
Safeguarding systems, risk assessments, infection control and recruitment checks were in place. Most people and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People and relatives told us they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed caring interactions. Staff respected privacy, supported choice and encouraged people to remain independent.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, choices, communication needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and involved people and relatives in care reviews.
“Care plans reflected a good understanding of people's needs, including information and preferences about their religion and sexuality.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities such as films, painting, drawing, choir visits and church services. Staff also helped people keep in contact with relatives.
“There was an activity co-ordinator employed by the home and there were a range of activities available to people.” from the report
Legal applications were not always monitored
seriousOne person's deprivation of liberty application was delayed after the previous authorisation expired. This meant there was no legal authorisation in place for a period, although the application was made immediately after inspectors raised it.
“This meant they was no legal authorisation for that person to be deprived of their liberty.” from the report
Dental checks were missed
needs fixingSome people had not received their annual dental checks. Inspectors said this increased the risk that dental and mouth care problems would not be found early.
“This increased the risk of dental and mouth care problems not being identified and preventative action taken.” from the report
Some incident notifications were late
needs fixingTwo incidents had not been reported to CQC without delay, despite the manager understanding this legal requirement. The required notifications were sent after inspectors raised the issue.
“We identified two recent incidents we should have been informed of.” from the report
Medicine record did not match what happened
needs fixingOne person had medicine left in a pot that they had not taken. A staff member had signed the medicine record before making sure the medicine was taken safely, and the manager acted immediately.
“The person had capacity to understand about their medication however, the staff member had not ensured these medicines were taken safely before signing the medication administration records.” from the report
- 01What system now checks that every deprivation of liberty application is made before an existing authorisation expires?
- 02How are annual dental checks recorded, monitored and followed up for each person?
- 03How do staff confirm that medicines have been taken before signing the medicine record?
- 04What checks now ensure incidents that must be reported to CQC are notified without delay?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels and call bell response times, particularly at weekends?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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.
Every inspection of Gower Gardens Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Gower Gardens Residential Care Home →
- July 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 2022.
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 Dudley
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 £1,230 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 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.”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.