CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Collingwood Grange Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They found measures covering visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 8 April 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control.
They found a clear process for safe visits, including booking, health screening and visiting rooms or a visiting pod. People could also keep in touch through video calls, and their wellbeing was monitored while visits were restricted.
The home was clean and hygienic. Staff used personal protective equipment safely, testing was organised, social distancing measures were in place and staff worked in defined areas to reduce infection risks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not produce a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating, and it did not assess all aspects of the service.
Safe visiting
Visits were booked and visitors were screened before entering. People could meet loved ones in their room or in a designated visiting pod.
“A clear visitors process was in place which enabled people to see their loved ones safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had enhanced cleaning routines and used labels to identify high-touch areas needing extra precautions.
“The home was clean and hygienic throughout.” from the report
PPE and testing
There was enough personal protective equipment, staff had been trained to use it, and testing was organised for people and staff.
“People and staff undertook COVID-19 testing in line with government guidance.” from the report
Staff support
Staff said they felt supported, and the provider made guidance, risk assessments, counselling and wellbeing services available.
“Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the management team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does the current visiting process work, and what screening is required before visits?
- 02How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19 and other infections?
- 03How do you make sure staff use and dispose of personal protective equipment safely?
- 04How are activities and care plans kept person centred when visits or group activities are restricted?
- 05What arrangements are in place now to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other areas of care were not assessed and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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, October 2019
Collingwood Grange Care Home rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing concerns and a police investigation remained.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to stay as independent as possible. Medicines, risk assessments, food, activities and access to healthcare were also found to be managed well.
The inspection was brought forward after allegations of abuse involving three staff members. Those staff had been dismissed, and investigations by the provider, the local authority and the police were continuing. Inspectors found no evidence during the visit that people were at risk of harm, but said they would continue to monitor the information received.
People and staff gave mixed views about staffing levels on each floor. Call bells were answered promptly during the inspection, but inspectors recommended that staffing levels should be reviewed against people's needs. More information was also needed in care plans about people's wishes at the end of life.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and privacy.
“People and relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them.” from the report
Support for independence
People were involved in daily decisions and were encouraged to do things for themselves where they could.
“Staff encouraged independence in people irrespective of their conditions and this was a feature in all the care of the people at the service.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were recorded and administered safely. Care plans included risks such as falls, dehydration, malnutrition and pressure sores.
“Medicines were managed in a safe way and people told us that they received their medicines when needed.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, meetings and action plans to check care and respond to problems. Inspectors found records well ordered and easy to use.
“The records that were kept at the service were comprehensive, well ordered and easy to navigate.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingPeople and staff gave mixed feedback about staffing. Inspectors saw enough staff on the day, but recommended checking staffing levels against people's needs on each floor.
“We recommend that the provider reviews the dependencies of people that live at the service to determine whether their staff levels are adequate.” from the report
End-of-life care plans
needs fixingInspectors said care plans needed more information about people's wishes for end-of-life care. The registered manager said this would be addressed.
“More information was required in the care plans around what people wanted at the end of their life.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally deployed on each floor, and how do you check this matches people's current needs?
- 02What was the outcome of the police, safeguarding and internal investigations mentioned in the report?
- 03Have all residents' end-of-life care plans been updated to record their wishes?
- 04How do you provide one-to-one activities for people who spend much of their time in bed?
- 05What action has been taken to improve the culture between staff groups and help all staff feel valued?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 2019 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 Collingwood Grange Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Collingwood Grange Care Home →
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Collingwood Grange Care Home →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 2010.
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.