Archived: Gresham Residential Care Home

Updated 18 May 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type:

Gresham Residential Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection we gathered information from the following:

• Six people’s care records and risk assessments

• Medicine records

• Records of accidents, incidents and complaints

• Audits and quality assurance reports

• Eight people using the service

• Three members of staff, registered manager, assistant manager and the provider.

• Staff and resident meetings

• Recruitment records

Updated 18 May 2019

About the service:

Gresham Residential Care Home is a care home that provides personal or nursing care to up to 30 adults. There were 25 people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us that they felt safe living at the service, however, the service was not always safe.

• Staff administered people’s medicines, but these were not managed safely, putting people at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed.

• Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had been assessed but there was not always guidance for staff to mitigate the risks and keep them safe as possible.

• Environmental risks had been assessed but there were no records to show that checks had been completed to reduce the risks to people.

• Checks and audits had been completed but these had not been effective in identifying the shortfalls found at this inspection. The service had not continuously improved the quality of the service provided.

• Accidents and incidents had been recorded and action taken, however, these actions had not been clearly recorded or reviewed to check they had been effective.

• People told us there were enough staff to support them as they preferred. Staff had been recruited safely and received training and supervision appropriate to their role.

• Staff and the registered manager understood their responsibility to protect people from abuse.

• People’s needs were assessed, this was used to develop a care plan, which was reviewed regularly. People agreed their care plan and received a copy.

• People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and how they spent their time.

• People benefited from access to healthcare professionals and were supported to be as active as possible.

• People knew how to complain and were comfortable to raise any issues with the registered manager.

• We observed people being treated with kindness and respect. People were supported to be as independent as possible.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 13 October 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection planned on the rating of the last inspection. We found that the service no longer met the characteristics of Good. The domains of safe and well led are now rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating is now Requires Improvement.

Follow up:

We will work with the provider following this report being published to understand and monitor how they will make changes to ensure the service improves to a rating of at least Good.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk