Gencare Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed. Systems were in place to investigate accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding incidents. People were cared for in a safe way and lived in a safe and well-equipped environment. The environment was clean and well-maintained. There was a system in place to respond to falls appropriately and to reduce the incidence of people falling. People’s medicines were managed safely and they received these as prescribed. Effective systems were in place to safely recruit staff. There were enough staff to care for people. Staff were well trained and supported appropriately. Staff and management communicated and worked with other agencies to help keep people safe. Systems were in place to help prevent and control infections in the home.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with told us they felt able to speak to staff and the manager openly. Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint and were confident they would be listened to. A relative said, “I have emailed management in the past and they have always come back to me promptly, so they have been good. I have no concerns.” People’s care and support needs were reviewed regularly so that they had an opportunity to provide feedback.

Management focused on ensuring there was a culture of learning within the home. Staff had been involved in learning when things went wrong. They said management and their colleagues helped them learn and improve practice. They told us lessons learnt were discussed in staff meetings and daily handovers. This provided an opportunity for them to openly discuss and learn from one another. Management told us they investigated adverse events and had learnt from these to reduce the likelihood of these reoccurring and improve the quality of care and safety within the home. Handovers and daily records were documented daily. This helped staff keep updated of changes and important information. It also helped staff to monitor people’s progress.

There was a system in place for managing incidents and accidents affecting people’s safety well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately and managers investigated them and shared lessons learned. Policies and procedures were in place for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts. Management explained that since the previous inspection, they had reviewed and updated their accident/incident forms. We noted that these forms included details of the action taken following an accident/incident, as well as triggering factors, actions taken to prevent reoccurrence and lessons learnt. They shared this learning with staff to help make sure changes were embedded within the home.

Relatives told us they were informed and involved in people’s care and support planning. A family member told us, “The communication is good.”

Management shared some examples of referrals made to the local authority. Risks to people’s health had been identified. Clear communication had taken place between the manager and other care professionals.

The provider worked closely with other care professionals and the local authority. There was a referral and admission process in place. This meant people could feel confident they would receive joined up care.

When asked if people felt safe in the home, a person told us, “I am happy here. I feel safe.” Relatives told us they were confident people were safe in the home. A relative told us, “I feel [my family member] is safe in the home. I have no reason to think otherwise.” Another relative said, “My [family member] is definitely safe.” Relatives did not raise any concerns about people’s safety in the home.

Staff told us they felt confident reporting concerns. They were able to describe the action they would take if they witnessed or suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. The manager was aware of their responsibilities on how to help protect people from abuse and the actions they would take where there was an allegation of abuse.

We observed the environment in the home was safe.

Appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place. These provided guidance about the action to take if staff had concerns about the welfare of people. Training records showed staff had completed safeguarding training. There was a system in place for recording safeguarding concerns which helped management have oversight over this. There was information on display in the home about who to report abuse to.

Relatives were confident risks were managed in the home and people were supported to remain safe.

Staff appropriately assessed risks to people's health and safety. They were able to describe how they supported people safely to reduce the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with told us they wouldn’t hesitate to raise concerns with management and had confidence that the appropriate action would be taken.

We observed people were supported and cared for in a safe way. Staff took the time to explain what they were doing and encouraged people to make choices. We observed a member of staff asking people individually what they wanted to eat for lunch.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed. Risk assessments included detail about how staff should support people. Risk assessments covered various areas such as the environment, transfers and medical conditions. They were person centred and included information about the level of risk, triggering factors and how to minimise the associated risk. Staff received training in areas of potential risk such as first aid, moving and handling and health and safety. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) had been completed for each person. PEEPS give staff or the emergency services detailed instructions about the level of support a person would require in an emergency such as a fire evacuation.

People were complimentary about the home and their living environment. A person told us, “I am happy with my room.” People lived in a safe, homely and welcoming environment. People’s rooms were personalised. The lighting, ventilation and temperature were appropriate and met people's needs. Relatives we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the environment.

Staff told us they knew how to ensure the environment was safe. Management and staff carried out regular checks on equipment and safety.

There was a homely atmosphere. There was sufficient furniture and equipment to meet people's needs and to ensure they were comfortable. The environment was free from clutter or hazards. People had their own bedrooms which were light, personalised and well equipped.

Processes were in place to ensure risks within the environment were assessed and monitored. There were regular checks and a maintenance system to help ensure the home remained a safe place to live. Regular checks on appliances and equipment and checks on safety items such as window restrictors were carried out. Fire drills and regular fire alarm tests had been carried out and were recorded appropriately. The manager explained thermostatic mixing valves (TMVs) were fitted on hot water outlets to ensure that the temperature did not exceed 40ºC.

People spoke positively about care staff. A person told us, “I like the staff. They are really kind and caring. Staff are lovely.” Another person said, “Staff are good.” Relatives were complimentary about care staff. A family member said, “The care staff are amazing. They are lovely. They are very nice and caring.” People received continuity of care. Care and support was provided by a stable and regular workforce that people were familiar with. This helped people and staff develop positive relationships.

Staff told us there were sufficient numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs. Management explained that since the previous inspection, they had recruited a significant number of staff. Staff spoke positively about staffing numbers. They said that if staff were off work, appropriate cover was arranged. Staff spoke positively about communication in the home and said they were kept informed changes and developments within the home.

Staff were attentive and responsive. On the day of our site visit, we observed that there were sufficient staffing numbers and staff were not rushed. Staff were able to spend time interacting with people.

Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure staff recruited were assessed as safe to work with people. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services. We were assured that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The staffing rota indicated that there were sufficient permanent staff working at the service to cover staff absences. People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills required to effectively meet their needs. Records showed that staff had received training in areas relevant to their roles. Staff received supervision sessions which provided an opportunity for them to discuss their performance and professional development.

People told us the home environment was clean. This was confirmed by relatives. A relative told us, “The home is clean. It is spotless always.”

Staff completed infection prevention and control training. They were given the information and guidance they needed. Staff we spoke with were confident about what their responsibilities were in relation to infection control.

The home environment was clean. On the day of the assessment, we observed care staff prepare lunch for people whilst following good hygiene practices such as hand washing and wearing gloves as appropriate.

Infection prevention and control policies were in place. There was a cleaning rota in place which allocated tasks to staff to help divide tasks fairly amongst staff and ensure tasks were covered. Staff and the manager carried out regular audits of cleanliness.

Relatives felt people were appropriately supported with their medicines. A relative told us, “My [family member] is receiving their medicines as they are supposed to. They get them at the same time and I see this when I am there.” People’s behaviour was not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines.

Staff spoke positively about the medicines training they had completed. Staff had their competency to administer people’s medicines safely assessed to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to do so. Staff told us they knew how to report medicines incidents and felt confident in doing so.

A medicines policy and procedure was in place. People’s medicines support needs were documented in their care plan. Care staff recorded medicines administration on paper based Medicine Administration Records (MARs). We viewed a sample of MARs and found these were completed fully indicating that medicines prescribed had been administered appropriately. Medicines were stored safely and correctly in the home. Some people were prescribed PRN (as required) medicines. There were protocols for staff on when and how to administer PRN medicines. We saw PRN medicines were administered as prescribed. The manager advised that they implemented the principles of STOMP (stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism or both) and ensured that people's medicines were reviewed in line with these principles.