CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grandsmere Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although some care plan information was not current.
This was an unannounced, routine comprehensive inspection on 14 January 2020. One inspector visited, spoke with three people, two relatives, the manager and two care staff, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and other records.
The home supported people with learning disabilities. Four people were living there, although the home was registered for up to seven people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and a clean, safe environment.
People were treated with dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions, menus, activities and care reviews. Care plans included detailed information about people's preferences and support needs, but some original assessment information was no longer current.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in May 2017.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff and saw that medicines were administered safely. Recruitment checks and staff medicine training were also in place.
“People received their medicines safely. We looked at two medication administration records which were completed accurately.” from the report
Respectful care
People and relatives said staff treated them well. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People who used the service and relatives told us staff always treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised activities
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and social needs. People took part in activities such as football, church, arts and crafts, college and holidays.
“People took part in activities that interested them and met their needs, with weekly activity planners created and held in people's care and support plans.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff felt supported and said teamwork was good. The provider and manager used audits and meetings to oversee the service and share learning.
“Audits were completed by both the provider and registered manager to ensure there was continuous oversight of the service.” from the report
Some assessment information was out of date
needs fixingInspectors found that the original information about people's care and support needs was not current. Changes and updates were recorded in care and support plans, but families should check that plans reflect the person's present needs.
“The information was not current. Any changes and updates were recorded in care and support plans.” from the report
- 01How often will my relative's care plan and original assessment information be reviewed and updated?
- 02How will you support my relative's preferred activities, community access and relationships?
- 03What support will my relative receive with medicines, and how are staff checked as competent?
- 04How will you support my relative to make choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 05How will you communicate information to my relative in a way they can understand?
This was an unannounced routine comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home and the care provided both examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor recording and decoration issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 May 2017. Four people lived at the home. Inspectors spoke with two people, three staff, the service coordinator and the registered manager, and contacted relatives and local safeguarding teams.
The inspectors observed care, checked the building, reviewed one person's care records and examined records about how the home was run. They found good care in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
The home had previously breached safe care and treatment rules because epilepsy risk assessments were missing. Inspectors found these assessments had been added and there were no breaches at this inspection. They also noted that redecoration was under way and that one mental capacity record contained a recording error.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and records were clear. Staff knew people's preferences and made sure medicines went with them when they were away from the home.
“There was a medicines sheet which went with people on outings or to other places during the day so people received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff treated people with respect and recognised their choices, including when someone wanted to stay in their room.
“We saw when staff interacted with people in the service, this was respectful and there was evidence of good relationships.” from the report
Personalised support
People had individual support plans and were helped to follow their hobbies, interests and preferred routines.
“Care was person centred with people making decisions about their care and support.” from the report
Organised management
The home had regular audits and checks. Records about the building, equipment and running of the home were kept up to date.
“Records were very well organised, maintained and up to date.” from the report
Redecoration was incomplete
minorThe home was being redecorated, but inspectors saw wear and tear and said it did not look homely at the time. Contractors had been asked to quote for the work.
“However, we saw evidence of wear and tear in the home's décor and we saw in the signing in book appointed contractors had been to quote for work to be done.” from the report
Staff rota times were unclear
minorStaffing levels were suitable, but the rota did not consistently show clearly when staff started and finished because the 24-hour clock was not always used.
“It was difficult to see the times of staff coming on and off duty because the 24 hour clock was not used consistently.” from the report
Mental capacity record needed correction
needs fixingOne record had a tick suggesting a person had capacity to decide about their living arrangements, although the manager said this was a recording error. The service was reviewing its paperwork.
“However, there was a tick beside the question 'does this person have capacity to make this decision?'” from the report
- 01Has the mental capacity paperwork been corrected and checked for similar recording errors?
- 02Has the planned redecoration been completed, including repairs for the wear and tear identified by inspectors?
- 03How are staff start and finish times recorded now, and has the rota system changed?
- 04How are epilepsy and other individual risk assessments reviewed when people's needs change?
- 05How will the home keep families informed about care reviews and any changes to support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions with people and staff, a review of one person's care records and checks of how the home was run. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2017 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 Grandsmere Place
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Calderdale
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.