Gorton Parks Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Following this assessment, we found breaches of regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. Care was not always person-centred and dignified. Some people looked unkempt, and records lacked evidence of regular support to bathe and shower. Although staff were aware of people’s needs, some care records were not reflective of current needs and how best staff should support them. The provider had not always explored barriers to care including communication barriers and how people could give feedback on care. Staff had not been asked for feedback or had received regular supervision.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care was not always person centred. People told us staff were kind and caring but were often busy, which meant they were not always able to have a bath or shower when they wanted. We reviewed several daily care records and found one person had not been offered a bath or shower in the 28 days prior to our visit. Another person had not received a bath or shower for 16 days. They had been supported to wash in their bedroom but had experienced heavy incontinence and we were not assured the person had been supported to have their personal care attended to effectively. A third person according to the care daily notes had not been supported to have a bath or shower for more than 6 weeks. This person had moved into the home following neglecting their personal care and required staff to support them to bathe. Some relatives told us they wished for communication to improve. One relative told us they were no longer permitted to go into the kitchen and make drinks for themselves and their relation when visiting and had asked why but never received a response. Another relative told us, the priest used to visit their relation, but it suddenly stopped. They had been asking why and hadn’t receive a response.

Staff told us they aimed to provide person-centred care but staffing levels impacted upon this. The majority of staff had worked at the home for many years and knew people very well. Staff were able to describe people’s needs. For example, staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and how to support people with mobility requirements, but this information was not always reflected in care records.

We observed staff supporting people with physical needs such as moving and handling in a person-centred manner. We did not always see staff explaining why people needed support when they had refused, or considering if another staff member would be able to better provider the support. For example, one person who was distressed did not want male care workers supporting them at the home, yet we observed male care workers trying to speak to them which exacerbated the individual’s distress.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People felt they were treated well but it was evident the provider had not explored barriers to care and support including making reasonable adjustments for people to communicate, explore their cultural identity and be able to give feedback on care. People were supported to receive input from advocacy services if required.

Staff had not been asked for feedback. Staff told us they had raised any points they had in staff meetings, but staff meetings had not occurred for a long period. Staff told us they would report any discrimination or unfair care about people living at the home, to the senior person in charge but they were not fed back any outcomes. However, there was no evidence staff were supported when they were subjected to discrimination themselves.

There was no evidence the provider was assessing where there may be an inequality to care and support at the home including when supporting people to communicate.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.