CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Downham Grange
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Downham Grange rated Inadequate and placed in special measures after inspectors found unsafe care and serious management failures.
This was a focused inspection on 22 June and 4 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
They found serious safety problems. These included unclean areas, unsecured creams and personal care products, poor management of choking, pressure sore, food and fluid risks, missed or unavailable medicines, and staffing levels below the home's assessed needs.
Management checks were not finding or fixing important problems. There was no registered manager in post, and incidents were not always reported to the CQC or local authority. The home breached Regulations 12, 18 and 17.
The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures, which means the CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months.
Fire and water safety checks
Inspectors found that regular checks of fire safety equipment and legionella water safety were being completed.
“Regular checks of fire safety equipment, and legionella water safety checks were being completed.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
The home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, and required legal authorisations were in place where people were deprived of their liberty.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
People and relatives could raise concerns
People and relatives said they felt able to raise concerns. Inspectors also found that people and relatives were involved in developing care records.
“People and relatives told us they felt comfortable raising concerns or complaints with staff, and these would be responded to appropriately.” from the report
Responsive staff interactions
Inspectors saw staff respond to people who were upset or needed reassurance. Staff were also observed using reflective practice after incidents.
“We observed staff to be responsive to people for example if they were upset or needing reassurance.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousMedicines were sometimes out of stock or not given as prescribed. Records for creams and patch medicines had gaps, some creams were out of date, and some creams were not stored securely.
“People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risks were not managed
seriousChoking, pressure sore, diabetes, food and fluid risks were poorly managed. Some people could access items that might harm them, including denture tablets, creams and personal care products.
“People, including those living with dementia were able to have unsupervised access to items such as denture cleaning tablets, drink thickener, razors and personal care products were not stored securely to protect them from harm.” from the report
Poor cleanliness and basic care
needs fixingSome areas and equipment were visibly dirty. Inspectors saw unclean fingernails, malodour in some bedrooms and gaps in records for nail and teeth cleaning.
“People's basic care needs were not met.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's audits had identified some concerns but had not led to effective action. Notifiable incidents were not consistently reported, and there was no registered manager in post.
“The systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not established or operated effectively to maintain standards and drive improvement at the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure there are enough nurses and care staff on every shift, especially overnight?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines are available, given safely and recorded correctly, including creams and patch medicines?
- 03How are choking, pressure sore, diabetes, food and fluid risks now checked and acted on?
- 04What has been done to secure creams, denture cleaning tablets and other personal care products from people who may access them unsupervised?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management oversight, and what evidence can you show that audits now identify and fix care problems?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were not inspected and the overall rating was calculated using the previous inspection ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 2023 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, September 2022
Downham Grange was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found recent progress but continuing safety and management weaknesses.
This was an unannounced inspection after concerns about the quality and safety of care, including a specific incident followed by a death. Inspectors visited on 13 July 2022 and reviewed records remotely, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and observed care.
The home had made improvements since the previous inspection, including reducing agency staff, strengthening staff training and improving medicines management. Inspectors also found clean premises, suitable staffing on the inspection day, safe recruitment and appropriate responses to pressure ulcers and safeguarding concerns.
However, some important improvements were recent and not yet firmly established. Creams were left unsecured, daily care records were sometimes too vague, computer problems affected record keeping, and quality checks had not consistently identified or sustained improvements.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three key questions were not inspected during this visit, so their ratings were not reassessed.
Medicines management
Medicines were administered safely and in a way that responded to people's needs. Staff had training and their competence was checked.
“Medicine administration was person centred with staff being responsive to people's needs and requests for additional medicines as required.” from the report
Clean and maintained home
The home was clean, with regular cleaning records and no unpleasant smells reported. Equipment and the building were regularly maintained.
“The standards of cleanliness throughout the home were high and daily records evidenced regular cleaning.” from the report
Safer staffing and recruitment
Staffing levels met people's needs on the inspection day. Core staff teams were being developed, agency use had reduced and recruitment checks were completed.
“Staff recruitment and retention was improving, and the use of agency staff had significantly diminished.” from the report
Positive changes in leadership
The manager was working to improve the culture, develop staff skills and involve families. Families generally said communication and care were improving.
“The registered manager had taken time to get to know the staff and ask them what was working well and what needed improving.” from the report
Unsecured creams
seriousTopical creams and toiletries were left unlocked in people's rooms. Inspectors said this could cause harm if swallowed, particularly for people living with dementia.
“During our inspection topical creams and toiletries were left unlocked which could cause harm if digested.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome daily notes did not clearly explain how people's needs had been met. Staff sometimes used standard wording rather than describing what had happened.
“Some daily notes did not clearly show how people's needs were being met in line with their needs.” from the report
Weak oversight
needs fixingQuality checks had not consistently identified problems or ensured that improvements lasted. Inspectors found that outside organisations had identified concerns instead.
“The provider's quality assurance processes had not always identified service improvements or driven up quality.” from the report
Electronic recording problems
needs fixingTechnical failures affected staff's ability to record care promptly. Extra devices and training had only recently been introduced.
“Problems with accessing and recording care contemporaneously could affect the timeliness of care people received.” from the report
Staffing and activities
minorSome relatives were concerned about staffing and delays when entering or leaving the building. Activities varied across the home, especially in the dementia unit.
“We found however people's opportunity to engage in planned activities, varied across the home.” from the report
- 01How are topical creams and toiletries now kept locked away, especially in rooms used by people living with dementia?
- 02What happens to care records when the electronic devices or system fail?
- 03How are you checking that daily notes clearly describe the care each person received?
- 04What staffing levels and arrangements are in place for activities and for helping people get up when they need to?
- 05How will you show that the recent improvements are being sustained over time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key-question ratings were not reassessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2022 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 Downham Grange
10 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- October 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.