CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jean Garwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found an unaccounted-for tablet, a gap in one medicines record and staff not always following mask guidance. Risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and safeguarding systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had experienced leadership, management checks and feedback from people, relatives and staff. Inspectors said this rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found enough staff and improved leadership, but medicines records and mask use needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, staff and managers. They checked care and medicines records, recruitment files and management audits.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe. One medicine could not be accounted for and there was a gap in one medicines record. Staff also did not always wear masks in line with current guidance, although this was corrected during the inspection.
The home was rated Good for Well-led. Inspectors found that recruitment, staffing levels, risk assessments and safeguarding had improved. The overall rating was Good, but ratings for questions not inspected were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home used overtime and regular agency staff while recruitment continued.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and recruitment was ongoing.” from the report
Improved recruitment
Recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection. They included identity, right-to-work, criminal record and suitability checks.
“At this inspection the provider had improved and recruitment was robust.” from the report
Risk management
Risks to people and the premises were assessed and staff had guidance to follow. Accident and incident records were reviewed for patterns.
“The provider assessed risks to each person and put guidance in place for staff to follow to reduce the risks.” from the report
Leadership and feedback
Inspectors found experienced management, a clear staff structure and regular feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“At this inspection this key question improved to good.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicines management was not robust enough. One tablet could not be accounted for and one vitamin record had a gap. The provider was preparing a more detailed audit system.
“Our checks showed one tablet for one person which could not be accounted for and a gap in the medicines record for a vitamin for one person.” from the report
Mask use
needs fixingStaff did not always follow the current mask guidance. The manager addressed this immediately during the inspection.
“Staff did not always follow safe infection control practice because masks were not always worn in line with current guidance.” from the report
- 01What new medicines audit system has been introduced, and how will you check that every tablet and record is accounted for?
- 02How do you now monitor that staff follow current mask and infection-control guidance?
- 03How many permanent staff and agency staff usually work on each shift?
- 04What actions from the recent fire safety guidance are still being completed?
- 05Which ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and quality monitoring were not always reliable.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 21 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with six people, one relative and seven staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, rotas and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People received personalised support, were treated with kindness and dignity, had access to healthcare, and were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Recruitment checks were incomplete in one file, safeguarding procedures had not been followed in one case, and some equipment and environmental risks needed attention. Quality checks were based on old standards and did not cover all areas robustly.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 27 April 2017. The report says the registered manager took action on recruitment and had an improvement plan, but CQC would continue monitoring the home.
Kind and respectful staff
People reported good relationships with staff. Staff respected people's dignity, privacy, choices and personal preferences.
“People confirmed the staff treated them kindly and with compassion, and they had built good working relationships with staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained people's needs and preferences and were reviewed when circumstances changed. People were involved in planning their care.
“People were provided with personalised care that met their needs.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
Staff contacted healthcare professionals when needed and supported people to attend appointments. Records showed appropriate action when staff had health concerns.
“People had their health needs met and were supported to have timely access to healthcare professionals.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make day-to-day decisions, take part in activities and develop skills such as meal preparation, laundry and housework.
“People confirmed they were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousOne recruitment file had gaps in employment history, unexplored reasons for leaving and references that were not on headed documentation. The manager said these checks were completed after the inspection and the process was amended.
“Robust recruitment checks were not always in place.” from the report
Safeguarding procedure
seriousInspectors found one case where the correct safeguarding process had not been followed. The manager said procedures would be revisited.
“However, we identified that in one case appropriate safeguarding processes had not been followed.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousA person said a shower grab rail felt as though it might come away from the wall. This affected their confidence and independence, despite regular health and safety checks.
“I used the grab rail in the shower and felt like it was going to come away so I hit the floor myself.” from the report
Limited meal choice
needs fixingUsually only one meal option was offered. People commented on the lack of choice, and the manager provided a revised menu after the inspection.
“We also received feedback from people about the lack of choice at mealtimes.” from the report
Training and equipment gaps
needs fixingStaff had not received specific positive behaviour support training. Inspectors also heard that a bath and tumble dryer were broken, although arrangements were in place to repair them.
“However, staff had not had specific training in relation to positive behaviour support” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every new recruit has complete employment checks and suitable references?
- 02What is your current safeguarding procedure, and how do you check that staff follow it every time?
- 03Has the shower grab rail been checked and repaired, and how do you report and track other environmental risks?
- 04What quality audits are now carried out using current regulations and best-practice guidance?
- 05What choice is now offered at mealtimes, and has the positive behaviour support training been completed?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the home premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2020 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 Jean Garwood House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.