CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Charlton Grange Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had safe infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 11 March 2021. It checked infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The home provided care for up to 62 older people, including people living with dementia, and 57 people lived there at the time.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, testing, social distancing and personal protective equipment were managed safely. They also found extra cleaning, staff training and monitoring of hygiene and infection control.
Staffing had remained stable, with no agency staff used during the pandemic. Staff supported people to avoid isolation during periods of self-isolation, and people continued to access healthcare. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Stable staffing
Staff retention was good during the pandemic and the home did not use agency staff. This supported consistent care.
“Staff retention had been good throughout the pandemic and there had been no use of agency staff.” from the report
Support during isolation
Staff spent one-to-one time with people in their rooms during self-isolation. Communal areas and small-group activities later supported social contact.
“During periods when people had to self-isolate, staff ensured people did not become socially isolated, spending time with people in their rooms on a one-to-one basis.” from the report
Infection control
The home increased cleaning, monitored hygiene and infection control, and trained staff in infection prevention and PPE.
“Additional cleaning had been implemented during the pandemic, including of equipment and of frequently touched areas.” from the report
Safe visiting and admissions
Visitors had testing, temperature checks, screening and PPE. New residents needed a recent negative test and a period of self-isolation after admission.
“Visitors were required to take a lateral flow test (LFT) and wait for a negative result before entering the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently tested and screened before entering the home?
- 02How do you support residents who need to self-isolate so they do not become socially isolated?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas and care equipment cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 04How are new admissions tested and supported during any required period of self-isolation?
- 05What infection prevention and control training and PPE checks do staff currently receive?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full assessment of all five quality areas and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safer, more consistent care, with only minor issues noted during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files, accident records, complaints and the home's checks on quality and safety.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, suitable care plans, kind staff and better activities. People were supported to make choices and to access healthcare when needed.
The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating in March 2019. The provider had recruited more permanent staff, appointed a new manager and improved its checks. The report says the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
More consistent care
The home had recruited permanent care and nursing staff and reduced its use of agency staff. Inspectors found that staff knew people and their needs well.
“The consistency of care people received had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Staffing and safety
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff on shifts. Inspectors found risks were assessed, safety equipment was checked and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities.
“There were enough staff on each shift to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs and preferences and were reviewed regularly. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Care plans were individualised and person-centred. They contained information about people's needs and preferences about their care.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors observed respectful conversations, reassurance and support for people's choices.
“During our inspection staff treated people in a way that was friendly yet respectful.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had recruited two activities co-ordinators. Inspectors found a more varied programme and people and relatives said activities had improved.
“Activities provision had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Menu did not match the food available
minorAt lunchtime, some people were disappointed because a dish shown on the menu was not available. The manager agreed to make sure the published menu reflected the food served.
“At lunchtime during our inspection, some people were disappointed that a dish which appeared on the menu was not available.” from the report
Previous medicine errors
needs fixingThe report records that a significant number of medicine errors had occurred during earlier periods. Inspectors said the issue had been addressed through more permanent staff and improved monitoring by the time of the inspection.
“There had been periods since our last inspection during which a significant number of medicines errors had occurred.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care and nursing staff are currently employed, and how often is agency staff used now?
- 02What checks are currently used to prevent and identify medicine errors?
- 03How do you make sure the daily menu matches the meals that are actually available?
- 04How are activities planned around each person's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 05How is the new manager's CQC registration progressing?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC areas, including care, premises, records, medicines, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 2020 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 Charlton Grange Care Home
7 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2016Goodup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.