GGW Care Limited

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 16 August 2024 (assessment visit 24 June 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Based on the findings of this assessment we found the service had improved and addressed all the outstanding breaches we identified at their last inspection. This meant people were now kept safe and protected from avoidable harm. This was because the provider had followed the action plan they had developed after their last inspection and improved how they protected people from abuse, assessed and managed risk, managed medicines, recruited staff, and ensured staff were adequately trained and supported.

   In addition, the provider continued to have a positive culture of learning lessons when things went wrong. Care plans were still based on pre-assessments conducted by the provider and various external health and social care professionals prior to people receiving a service. People continued to receive continuity of care from a dedicated group of staff who were familiar with their individual care needs, wishes and daily routines. Staff still followed current best practice guidelines regarding the prevention and control of infection including, those associated with COVID-19.

   However, although the provider had made improvements and was now moving in the right direction, we have only changed their rating from inadequate to requires improvement because they still need to demonstrate to us they can continue improving the safety of the service they provide people over a more sustained period of time.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   People's needs were assessed before they received a service from the provider which staff used to develop person centred care plans. The care and support people received was routinely monitored to continuously improve it.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Based on the findings of this assessment we found the service had improved and addressed all the outstanding breaches we identified at their last inspection.

   This was because at this assessment we found the provider had followed the action plan we required them to send us after their last inspection and improved. This meant staff now treated the people they supported with dignity and ensured the personal care they received was person-centred.

   In addition, staff continued to treat people with kindness and compassion, support them to make informed choices and decisions, and helped people maintain their independence. The rating for this key question has therefore changed from requires improvement to good.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Based on the findings of this assessment we found the service had improved and addressed all the outstanding breaches we identified at their last inspection.

   This was because at this assessment we found the provider had followed the action plan we required them to send us after their last inspection and improved. This meant staff ensured the personal care people now received was person-centred.

   In addition, staff continued to effectively communicate and share information with people in a way they could easily understand, treat people fairly and help them understand their equality and human rights.

   The rating for this key question has therefore changed from requires improvement to good.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   Based on the findings of this assessment we found the service had improved and addressed the outstanding breaches we identified at their last inspection for this key question. This meant the service was now consistently managed and well-led.

   This was because at this assessment we found the provider had followed the action plan we required them to send us after their last inspection and improved how they operated their oversight and scrutiny systems which were now effectively managed.

   However, although the provider had made improvements and was now moving in the right direction, we have only changed their rating from inadequate to requires improvement because they still need to demonstrate to us they can continue improving how the service is managed over a more sustained period of time.

   People were complimentary about the way the service was managed, and how approachable the office-based managers and all the staff were. The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people receiving a service, their relatives, and staff working for them. The provider worked in close partnership with external health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people's packages of care and support.