Gilling Reane Care Home

We assessed the quality statements from all the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led and we found the service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. Therefore, the overall rating for this service has improved from requires improvement to good. Under new leadership the service had improved the management of the overall quality and safety of the service including completing background checks and continuous monitoring of the suitability of staff employed.

People were protected and kept safe. Care records included assessments of a variety of risks associated with care and treatment. Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Staff received training and supervision to support them in delivering safe and effective care. During the assessment we identified some minor concerns with the management of some risks in the environment and with the safe management of medicines. These were addressed by the provider and manager, and they provided evidence of how they did this. The home was clean, and processes were in place to manage infection prevention.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff regularly reviewed these assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff involved people and those important to them in their care planning. Decisions were made in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity to do so themselves. People were appropriately supported with eating and drinking. The staff team worked well with other organisations and services to support people to manage their health and wellbeing.

People were treated as individuals and with kindness, dignity and compassion. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain their independence. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way. Staff ensured people received compassionate care and knew them well. People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were fully supported. People were regularly supported to engage in meaningful activities and interests and maintain relationships with family and friends. The provider and manager cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff team, valued them and enabled them to deliver person-centred care.

The service worked well with commissioners to ensure that continuity of care for people was managed. People’s individual communication needs were identified, and information was provided in an accessible way. People and their relatives were able to give feedback on care which the provider listened to and acted on. Staff understood about equality and diversity. The service contacted emergency services when required and knew when to involve specialist services in people’s care. There was a system in place for responding to concerns or complaints. People’s end-of-life wishes were noted and reflected in their care records.

There was a new manager in post, and they were in the process of registering with us. The service was led with integrity, transparency and diversity was valued in their workforce. Staff felt very supported by the management and were able to report concerns and said they were listened to. There were a range of quality monitoring and auditing processes in place. However, some minor issues seen during this assessment had not always been identified through those oversight processes. The provider and manager took immediate action to improve those processes to ensure they captured and could rectify those areas of concern. Management demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them, the staff and people using the service.