CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Astley Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, admissions, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Astley Grange was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because the home had been identified as a designated care setting for people leaving hospital with Covid-19.
Inspectors found robust infection control procedures. The home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Staff used zoning, cohorting and a separate entrance for the designated setting to reduce infection risks.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or assess all areas of care.
Infection control procedures
Inspectors found robust infection prevention and control policies and procedures that followed government guidance.
“The service had implemented robust infection prevention and control (IPC) policies and procedures.” from the report
Clean surroundings
The home was clean, tidy and well maintained, with enhanced cleaning being monitored.
“The service was clean, tidy and well maintained. Enhanced cleaning schedules were in place which were regularly monitored.” from the report
Separate infection control arrangements
The home could keep people and staff in separate zones. The designated setting also had its own entrance.
“The service was able to support effective zoning of people and cohorting of staff.” from the report
Multiple safety checks
Inspectors were assured about arrangements covering visitors, PPE, testing, admissions, social distancing and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you continuing to monitor and update the infection prevention and control policy?
- 02How do you arrange testing for people living here and for staff?
- 03How are new admissions assessed and kept safe from infection?
- 04How would you manage an infection outbreak, and how would this affect visits?
- 05How are the zoning and separate entrance arrangements being used now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements needed in allergen information and staff supervision.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and a visitor. They observed care and checked care files, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found safeguarding arrangements, risk plans, staffing, medicines management and infection control were in place. They also found kind relationships, respectful care, regular care plan reviews and activities that reflected people's interests.
The home had been rated Good at its previous inspection in February 2016 and remained Good. Inspectors identified two areas being addressed: catering staff had not identified potential allergens in meals, and not all staff had received supervision in line with the provider's policy.
Safe care systems
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and staff understood safeguarding procedures.
“Processes were in place to keep people safe and free from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively, and inspectors observed warm interactions that protected people's dignity and independence.
“There was an unhurried atmosphere in the home that allowed people time to make their way around the home and supported their independence.” from the report
Up-to-date care plans
Care records contained appropriate information and were reviewed when people's health or support needs changed.
“Care plans continued to be reviewed on a regular basis detailing achievements or changes since the last review” from the report
Activities and family contact
The home offered a range of activities based on people's interests. Relatives could visit without restrictions and were made welcome.
“There were no visiting time restrictions and relatives were actively encouraged to visit whenever possible and always made to feel welcome.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and feedback from people and relatives to monitor and improve the service.
“A range of audits were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Allergen information
needs fixingCatering staff had not identified possible allergens in meals. The provider told inspectors this would be corrected immediately.
“the catering staff had not identified potential allergens in the meals provided.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingAn audit found that not all staff had received supervision in line with the provider's policy. The required action was still being planned.
“A recent audit of staff supervision meetings had found that all staff had not received supervision in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Follow-through on staff concerns
minorOne staff member said that issues could be raised easily but did not always lead to change. The provider said this would be investigated.
“We can raise issues easily but things don't always change.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to identify allergens in every meal, and how is this checked now?
- 02How often does each staff member receive supervision, and how do you check that this happens on time?
- 03How do you record and act on concerns raised by staff, people living here and relatives?
- 04How are care plans updated when someone loses weight or their health needs change?
- 05What activities are currently available for people who do not enjoy bingo or group activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Astley Grange
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 2013.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.