Goatacre Manor Care Centre

There was an open and transparent culture based on learning and ongoing improvement. Accidents and incidents were investigated and action taken to minimise a reoccurrence. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to identify and report abuse. The environment was clean, safe and well maintained. Staff answered call bells in a timely manner and went about their work without rushing. Staff received a range of training to help them do their job effectively. Systems supported good infection prevention and control.

There were regular reviews of people’s care, and health care professionals were involved as required. People were supported to live healthier lives and their independence was promoted. Leaders and staff strived to achieve good outcomes for people and gained consent before any interventions.

People were treated with compassion, and their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff treated people as individuals, whilst promoting choice and control. People were offered a range of social activity they could join in with, and visitors were welcomed at any time.

Staff knew people well, and there was a focus on ensuring good quality, personalised care. There were systems to enable people to give feedback about the service, and action had been taken in response. People’s communication needs had been assessed, and any challenges were addressed.

Leaders had a clear vision of the service, based on empowerment and ensuring rights were respected. This in turn ensured a good quality of life was enabled. Staff were complimentary about leaders and there was an open and supportive culture. Staff were confident to speak up if they had concerns and were assured action would be taken. A range of auditing systems were undertaken, and any shortfalls formed part of a clear action plan.

However, care planning was not always personalised, and monitoring records did not always demonstrate care delivery. This did not ensure people’s preferences were adhered to or that risks were mitigated effectively. Whilst people received their medicines in line with their preferences, detailed guidance was not always available for those medicines to be taken ‘as required.’ This did not ensure the medicines were administered as prescribed, or to maximum effectiveness. Clinical audits had not been analysed to identify possible patterns or trends. This did not enable the information to be used effectively to further improve the service. Leaders told us these areas would be addressed, and on the second day of the inspection, leaders showed us what they were implementing to make improvements.