Gwendolen Road Care Home

We reviewed all quality statements in the Safe domain. Since the last inspection the quality and detail of information within risk assessments and care plans had continued to improve, which meant staff had access to clear guidance on the care of people’s needs to improve both the safety and quality of care provided. Systems and processes for monitoring and responding to risk enabled the management team to identify themes and trends, and therefore prevent and mitigate risk. Effective processes and training of staff in safeguarding supported people to live in safety. Systems and processes monitored and promoted people’s health, supported by good partnership working. Staff were recruited safety, and there were sufficient experienced and skilled staff to meet people’s needs. Systems and processes, along with staff training meant people received their medicine as prescribed. Minor environmental concerns identified at the time of the assessment were actioned by the provider, with additional checks being introduced to maintain the improvements undertaken. Equipment was maintained and inspected by external companies.

Assessments and reviews of people’s needs referenced their involvement and that of social care professionals. People’s needs, including communication and dietary needs were documented within their care plan, which were fully understood by skilled and experienced staff. Staff worked effectively with health care professionals to promote and maintain people’s health and wellbeing. Documentation detailing people’s needs, including medicine and communication needs was shared with other professionals when people went to hospital. People’s capacity to make decisions were assessed and appropriate legal processes were in place for those who had some restrictions around their care in place. Staff understood people’s right to make decisions.

We reviewed all quality statements in the Responsive domain. We found people were supported by staff to ensure their health needs, experiences and outcomes were positive. Staff had access to care plans which detailed people’s backgrounds, preferences and protected characteristics. People were supported to access services within their local community. People and staff were able to communicate effectively in a range of languages. Accessibility of information was identified as an area for improvement, to both support and promote people’s independence and understanding through the provision of information in alternative languages. People’s views were sought, listened to and acted upon.

We reviewed all quality statements in the Well-led domain. We identified the service had made further improvements following our previous inspection. Systems and processes to monitor the safety and quality of the care provided had improved, with clear roles, responsibilities and accountability understood. However, some shortfalls remained, with some additional learning and improvement needed within the systems and processes, namely health and safety checks, environmental oversite. The provider and registered manager accepted our findings, and immediately acted to resolve the minor issues identified during the inspection.

There was an inclusive and positive culture at the service. The provider had worked hard since the last inspection to ensure they were providing person centred, and safe care. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and were able to speak up or make suggestions to improve the service. There were systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of care.

People were encouraged to be involved in their local community Relationships with partner agencies, the management team and staff had improved and feedback received supported this.