Gardiner’s Homecare service’s (Care Quality Commission) CQC report has finally been issued 25/04/18 following our inspection at the end of November 2017.
The CQC asks 5 key questions about every service that they inspect:
- Are they safe?
- Are they effective?
- Are they caring?
- Are they responsive to people’s needs?
- Are they well-led?
We are delighted to share that Gardiner’s rating for the November 2017 CQC inspection was an Outstanding rating for how Responsive we are to people’s needs – whilst for all others areas Gardiner’s was rated as Good.
Are service user’s safe? – Gardiner’s was rated in the CQC report as Good
“Sufficient staff were employed to manage people’s needs, and enable them to engage in activities of their choice, through appropriate risk management. Staff knew how to safeguard people from
abuse and were aware of the protocols to follow should they have concerns. Staff reported that they would not hesitate to whistle-blow if the need arose. Where staff were involved in medicine
management this was managed safely. Staff were competency checked annually and audits were completed monthly to ensure people were supported by staff with the necessary skills to keep them safe.”
Are they Effective – Gardiner’s was rated in the CQC report as Good
“Support was delivered by a highly trained staff team, who were able to respond appropriately to people’s changing needs. Staff were supervised and supported by an effective management team, who made certain they were available to staff at all times. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.”
Are they Caring – Gardiner’s was rated in the CQC report as Good
“Staff were reported to be polite, respectful and ensured they maintained people’s dignity when supporting them. They encouraged open communication and worked on motivating people to increase their independence. Evidence of using systems of communication that reflected the person’s choice highlighted that staff communicated with people in the way they wished.”
Are they Responsive? – Gardiner’s was rated in the CQC report as Outstanding
“Care plans were individualised, focusing on people’s specific needs. The service took necessary action to prevent and minimise the potential of social isolation. Activities were arranged and co-ordinated by the service to increase community engagement, and increase well-being. People reported having accessed the community after considerable length of time of not doing so. This reportedly made them feel a sense of belonging. People and staff were protected from discrimination. The service understood the importance of ensuring Equality Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR) was met, and that people’s protected characteristics were not discriminated against. Measures were in place to allow people to be treated equally, with systems continually being reviewed to ensure exemplary practice was maintained. Systems to monitor and investigate complaints were in place.”
Are they Well led? – Gardiner’s was rated in the CQC report as Good
“The service had developed exceptional methods of good governance that provided real time evaluation of practice. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed annually with an action plan being generated, and followed upon. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders and used to improve and make changes to the service. We found evidence of compliments and complaints that illustrated transparency in management. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager’s skills and how these were shared with staff to continually help them grow and achieve good practice. The service focused on developing relationships with the community and with relatives of people, so to ensure good practice was maintained for the person continually. The service was considering offering family carers the opportunity to attend training that would enable them to have an insight into their loved one’s lives and how they saw the world. The service developed systems to help people achieve a fulfilling life. The service was well-led and focused on staff having ownership of the service.”