Gorton Parks Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Following this assessment, we found breaches of regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. Parts of the home lacked design and decoration to support people living with dementia. Maintenance was planned to improve on this. There were delays in supporting people to eat and drink. There was mixed feedback around the choices of meals. Care records did not always accurately record the support people required with eating and drinking. Assessments of people’s needs were not always fully completed and lacked detail on people’s personal preferences. Fluid intake was not accurately monitored, and we were not assured people were receiving enough fluids to remain hydrated.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives felt their needs were not always met. One relative told us, “I am not happy with the care [Name] is receiving and I have complained to the manager although I feel it is not being addressed. Glasses have gone missing, or not even put on for [Name] when they are there. The GP has said, [Name] has to have more fluids and that has not happened. I brought in extra drinks for [Name] and put them in the room, but they are still there. Multiple people and their relatives told us glasses, teeth and clothing had been lost and they felt not enough action had been taken to address the concerns. We did find a person’s glasses in another person’s room as we looked around each house.

Staff told us they were provided with information about people’s needs, but the information could vary depending on who completed the assessment. One staff member told us, “We struggle with new service users as some assessments are poor or have limited information.” For example, staff told us, an assessment may not highlight a person has some agitation but will become agitated at the home and the staff are not prepared. Staff told us they generally knew people well and were able to describe people’s assessed needs such as dietary requirements. We asked staff about how they were informed of any changes to people’s needs and they told us, senior staff or nurses would share the information, however, staff were not aware of the different information in some care plans, and we were not assured staff had read and understood the care plan.

People did have an assessment of their needs. Some assessments required further work to ensure all available information was gathered to enable staff to support people effectively. Some assessments lacked information on peoples personal, social and cultural requirements as well as likes and dislikes. Staff who reviewed care needs were not always updating the records robustly. We saw examples of where staff had recorded no changes to care needs when there had been a significant change to the individual’s wellbeing.

Parts of the home did not appear homely. Abbey Hey House was quite sparse in terms of decoration and had little signage to orientate people. Two workmen were putting up some black signs with said, “Be your own kind of beautiful” but it was not clear how these benefitted people living with dementia. An activity board had been put up with door handles, a keyboard and mouse and other objects for people to touch but there were 3 chairs in front of the board with people in sat in them, so the board became inaccessible. The other houses were a little more homely. Some pictures were on the walls. The provider was in the process of placing photographs and names on people’s bedroom doors. We received mixed feedback about the food served at the home. Some people told us the food was good while others told us there was a lack of choice. We observed some people waited a long time to be supported to eat on Melland House and this risked people not enjoying their food as it was cold. One person waited 20 minutes and their food was cold. We observed some people were struggling to eat the burger as it was large, and staff had not considered supporting the individual to cut the burger in half.

Staff told us they were following care records to reduce the risk of malnutrition in people, but staffing levels impacted upon ensuring everyone received nutritional support in a timely manner. Staff told us they aim to weigh people as required but sometimes people can refuse and become agitated, so they try again at a different time. It was not always evident staff were aware of best practice approaches when supporting people living with dementia as there was no consistent strategies to support people who were agitated. One staff member told us they used body language to communicate with an individual who could become agitated but wasn’t aware of any further strategies they could use.

Staff were not always following best practice guidance in relation to monitoring nutrition and fluid intake. Where people were on fluid monitoring, staff were not measuring the amount of fluid being consumed and were guessing the amount of fluid remaining. We also observed people being given a drink and staff were recording the individual had consumed 3 different drinks at the same time. This meant fluid records were not truly reflective of the fluids consumed. Where nutrition tools identified people were at risk of malnutrition, there was not always guidance provided for staff to ensure the individual was provided with the most suitable diet. We saw one person required a high calorie and fortified diet and there were no details contained in the care records of how staff should achieve this. There was no evidence in care records the staff were offering a fortified and high calorie diet, and the individual was regularly refusing meals. Staff were not offering smaller snacks in between meals to support the person to receive a healthy and nutritious diet.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.