CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Granada House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control measures. They were only partially assured about the layout and hygiene arrangements because further guidance was needed about hand sanitising gel.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Granada House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls, with further guidance needed about hand sanitising gel.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, testing, admissions, protective equipment, social distancing and cleaning safely. Staff and residents were tested regularly, and staff had training in hand hygiene and using protective equipment.
There was one partial assurance. Inspectors said more guidance was needed about where hand sanitising gel was placed, because someone might swallow it. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home had arrangements for visitor checks, testing, protective equipment, social distancing and safe admissions.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Cleaning
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Extra cleaning and checks were in place for communal areas and frequently touched surfaces.
“All areas of the home were clean, tidy and homely.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
Staff were tested each week and residents every four weeks. Staff had training in hand hygiene and using protective equipment.
“Each week staff were tested for COVID-19; twice a week a lateral flow test (LFT) and once a week a full PCR test.” from the report
Hand sanitising gel placement
needs fixingInspectors were only partially assured that the premises were safe in this respect. They said the home needed further guidance because the gel could be swallowed.
“Further guidance should be sought regarding the safe use of hand sanitising gel.” from the report
- 01Where is hand sanitising gel now placed, and what has been done to prevent anyone swallowing it?
- 02How often are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19?
- 03How are visitors checked and tested before entering the home?
- 04How would the home manage an outbreak if infected people needed to be separated?
- 05How are cleaning checks and staff use of protective equipment monitored?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other areas of care quality. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, December 2018
Granada House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some safety and maintenance issues needing attention.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 22 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with six people and four staff members. They reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines, complaints, incidents, training and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors saw warm relationships, enough staff, personalised care and support for people's independence, choices and health needs.
Inspectors found some issues with medicines storage, surfaces that needed replacing and frayed carpets. The insulin storage problem was fixed during the inspection. The report recommends action to reduce the risk of trips. The home had also not yet written end-of-life plans for people, although staff could explain how they would provide this support.
Kind relationships
People described staff positively, and inspectors observed warm, gentle and supportive interactions.
“Throughout our visit we observed kind, warm and supportive interactions between staff and the people we supported.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans explained people's needs, abilities and preferred ways of receiving support. Staff had developed detailed guidance for people with complex needs.
“People's care plans were based around each person's assessed needs and abilities.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and that people were attended to promptly but calmly.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The deputy manager used checks and records to monitor care, staffing and the environment. Staff morale was good and turnover was low.
“There was an effective governance system in place which checked that the environment was safe, clean and well-maintained.” from the report
Insulin storage
seriousInsulin was kept at the correct temperature but was not in a locked box, creating a risk that someone could access it. The deputy manager arranged for it to be locked during the inspection.
“Insulin had been stored in the fridge in the kitchen. This was stored at the correct temperature, however it was not in a locked box.” from the report
Maintenance and infection risks
needs fixingA bath hoist cover and some bedside tables needed attention because damaged or worn surfaces could allow bacteria to collect. Some carpets were frayed and could increase the risk of trips.
“We identified a bath hoist cover which needed to be replaced and some bedside tables which has started to de-laminate” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingPeople did not have end-of-life plans in place at the time of the inspection. Staff could describe how they would support someone approaching the end of life and would work with community nursing teams.
“Whilst people did not have end of life plans in place the deputy manager was able to describe clearly how they supported people.” from the report
- 01Has the insulin storage policy been updated, and how do you now check that medicines are kept securely?
- 02Have the bath hoist cover, bedside tables and frayed carpets been replaced or repaired?
- 03How and when will you record each person's end-of-life wishes and care preferences?
- 04Who is responsible for the home when the registered manager is working at the provider's other service?
- 05How do you use feedback from relatives and professionals to make improvements?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, with the overall rating and each question rating remaining Good from the previous inspection in April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 Granada House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 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.