CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Gardens Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to identify and reduce risks, monitor accidents and incidents, manage medicines and control infection. Some people said they sometimes waited for support, although records and observations showed staffing needs were being met.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission. Staff received training, dietary needs were supported, healthcare was accessed and capacity and consent were considered.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind interactions and found that staff knew people well. People were involved in care decisions and their dignity, privacy and independence were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Activities, complaints procedures and end of life plans were in place.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and open culture, clear management arrangements and quality checks to identify shortfalls. The previous breach of Regulation 17 had been resolved.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some people reporting waits for staff and dissatisfaction with the menu.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines safely, and had their health, dietary and personal needs assessed.
People were treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Activities, complaints procedures and end of life plans were in place. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, but the inspectors found enough improvement and no continuing breach of regulations.
Safer care planning
Risks were identified and reviewed. The home used accident and incident information to learn lessons and reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Lessons had been learned following incidents to prevent reoccurrence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively and inspectors observed caring interactions. Staff supported people's dignity and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“We observed caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded individual needs, preferences, likes, dislikes and communication needs. Activities were offered in groups and individually, based on people's interests.
“People had comprehensive care plans in place, detailing individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had quality assurance systems, regular meetings and an open culture. Inspectors found that the provider had acted on the previous inspection findings.
“There were robust quality assurance systems in place to effectively identify shortfalls of quality in the service.” from the report
Some waits for staff
minorSome people felt there were not enough staff at times and said they had to wait for support. The home said it would review how staff were deployed, although inspectors saw call bells answered promptly during the visit.
“Whilst some people felt there was not enough staff as sometimes they had to wait for support” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorSome people did not like the menu. The manager said a menu consultation meeting would be held, and staff offered alternatives when people did not want the meal listed.
“People we spoke with gave us mixed feedback about the food and some people told us they didn't like the menu.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people do not have to wait too long when they need staff support?
- 02What did residents say at the menu consultation, and what changes have been made since then?
- 03How are staffing levels calculated from each person's needs, and how are rota shortfalls covered?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed with the person and their family or representative?
- 05What quality checks are carried out now to make sure the improvements from the previous inspection continue?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but weaknesses in decision-making, infection control and quality checks.
This was the first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 22 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and medicine records, checked staff files, looked around the home and observed care.
The home was rated Good for caring and responsive care. People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Care plans were detailed and activities, healthcare support and family involvement were in place.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also for safe, effective and well-led care. Inspectors found missing mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, weaknesses in infection control, incomplete guidance for some medicines, and quality systems that had not found or fixed concerns promptly.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and respectfully. People and relatives said staff were kind, friendly and reassuring.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans described individual preferences, communication needs, mobility, eating and drinking, and sleep. Staff also had handover information to help them respond to changes.
“People had a range of care plans specifically designed for their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Healthcare support
People received input from healthcare professionals, and guidance was added to care records. Referrals were made in a timely way.
“Care records showed people had regular input from a range of health care professionals, such as GPs and speech and language therapists (SALT).” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People could take part in varied activities and relatives were welcomed and included in events and care reviews.
“We are invited to everything. We are made very welcome. We have been to birthday parties, a garden fete and Christmas lunch here.” from the report
Quality checks were not effective
seriousAudits had not identified repeated training concerns, missing decision records, medicine protocol problems or infection control issues. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“The lack of robust quality assurance meant people were at risk of receiving poor quality care.” from the report
Decision-making records were incomplete
seriousFor some people, mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing. In one case, there was no application for the legal authorisation needed for the person's restrictions.
“Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not always been completed or recorded.” from the report
Infection control risks
seriousUncovered containers of dirty laundry were seen near clean linen. Hoists and weighing chairs were stored in bathrooms, increasing the risk of contamination.
“People were not always protected from the prevention and control of infection.” from the report
As-required medicine instructions
needs fixingSome protocols did not explain when a person might need the medicine or what signs and symptoms staff should look for. Inspectors recommended a review.
“Some lacked detail, and did not outline when a person may require these medicines.” from the report
- 01What has changed in your quality checks since inspectors found that audits had missed infection control, training, medicine and mental capacity concerns?
- 02How do you now record mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and any required legal authorisations?
- 03What changes have you made to laundry storage and the storage of hoists and weighing chairs?
- 04How do staff decide when to give as-required medicines, and do the protocols now describe the signs and symptoms to look for?
- 05What was included in the action plan sent to CQC, and what evidence can you show that each action has been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care, records, medicines, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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 The Gardens Residential Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Gardens Residential Home →
- March 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Gardens Residential Home →
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 August 2017.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.