CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Guisborough Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were described as safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. However, staffing was not always sufficient at busy times on the first floor, and some medicines and care records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection, although inspectors recorded that staff were extremely caring and people and relatives spoke highly of them.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection. Inspectors noted that activities did not happen consistently because staff lacked time to organise and deliver them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had governance systems, sought feedback and worked with outside organisations to improve care. Inspectors said management visibility across the home needed to improve.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, knowledgeable care, but staffing at busy times and medicines records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 16, 18 and 23 May 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They also reviewed care records, recruitment records, training information and how the home was run.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Good. Staff knew people well, were caring and had the skills needed to support them. Infection control, safeguarding and recruitment arrangements were also found to be good.
There were not always enough staff available on the first floor at busy times. Some care records and medicines records needed improvement. Activities were not always delivered consistently, and the visibility of the management team needed to improve.
Staff knew people well
Staff showed good knowledge and skills in caring for people. People and relatives said staff were respectful, attentive and listened to them.
“Staff knew people well demonstrating good knowledge and skills in their care of people.” from the report
Kind and compassionate care
Inspectors found staff to be kind and compassionate. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible.
“Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion, supporting people to be as independent as they could be.” from the report
Good safety systems
Staff understood safeguarding procedures, recruitment was carried out safely, and infection prevention arrangements were effective.
“People were happy with the care they received, were very complimentary about staff and said they felt safe.” from the report
Improvement and partnership work
The provider used feedback, learning and work with other organisations to improve the service. Staff were supported with further training and qualifications.
“The provider had used learning from across the organisation and external projects they were involved in to lead improvements.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingThere were not enough staff deployed on the first floor at peak times. Inspectors recommended reviewing staff deployment.
“There were not enough staff deployed at peak times on the first floor.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousRecords for some medicines were missing or lacked enough detail. Some topical medicines were not given as prescribed, were undated and were not always stored properly.
“Topical medicines were not administered as prescribed and did not contain dates of opening.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome records did not contain all the information staff needed to provide person-centred care. A new recording tool was due to be introduced.
“Records supported staff to provide person-centred care; though there were gaps in some of the records reviewed.” from the report
Activities were inconsistent
minorActivities did take place, but staff did not always have enough time to organise and deliver them consistently.
“Staff lacked the time to organise and deliver activities consistently.” from the report
Management visibility
minorInspectors said the management team needed to be more visible across all areas of the home. The provider had started to address this during the inspection.
“The visibility of the management team needed to be improved across all areas of the service.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now deployed on the first floor at the busiest times of day?
- 02What changes have been made to records for when-required and variable-dose medicines?
- 03How do you check that topical medicines are given as prescribed, dated when opened and stored correctly?
- 04Has the new electronic recording tool been introduced, and how is its use checked?
- 05What has been done to make activities more consistent and to improve management visibility across the home?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the other three key questions were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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, February 2022
Guisborough Manor Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found robust visitor checks, regular testing and effective use of personal protective equipment. People who tested positive for COVID-19 were isolated, and extra checks were made on their wellbeing.
The home was clean, with regular cleaning of high-risk touch points. Staff had training in infection control, and inspectors were assured that the home was managing outbreaks and meeting vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for safe care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were checked before entering, and visits were arranged in line with government guidance.
“Robust checks of visitors took place to make sure they were safe to enter the service.” from the report
Managing COVID-19
The home used isolation, regular testing and extra wellbeing checks. Inspectors found that outbreaks had been managed well.
“Outbreaks of COVID-19 had been well managed.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had infection control training, and checks were made to ensure PPE was put on and removed correctly.
“Staff had undertaken training to manage the risks of cross infection.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had regular cleaning arrangements, including for high-risk touch points, and was clean throughout.
“Good cleaning regimes were in place. High risk touch point areas were regularly cleaned.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to follow infection control arrangements?
- 02How does the home currently manage COVID-19 outbreaks and isolate people who test positive?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens when someone tests positive?
- 04How does the home make sure there are enough staff when COVID-19 or other pressures affect staffing levels?
- 05When was the home's latest full CQC inspection, and what were the ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
Every inspection of Guisborough Manor Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.