CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grange Cottage Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, care records described risks in detail, and people received their medicines as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care records had improved. Staff had relevant training, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and lawful consent decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and independence was supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records were detailed and up to date. There was a full activities programme, more opportunities to visit the community, and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were approachable and had made improvements, but governance checks missed some minor safety and infection control issues. The rating stayed Requires Improvement.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but leadership and quality checks still require improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 2 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines processes, suitable care planning, good support with food and health needs, kind relationships and more activities for people.
Well-led remained Requires Improvement. Quality checks had missed some minor problems, including an unsafe window restrictor and outdated infection control documents. The home acted promptly when inspectors raised these issues.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The provider had addressed the earlier breaches and was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people in the home and on community trips. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“The service had enough staff to provide effective support at the service and when on trips out in the community.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff took time to learn about people's histories, preferences and interests. People were treated with dignity and supported to remain independent.
“Staff had spent time getting to know people at the service and building relationships.” from the report
Activities and community access
The home had introduced a full activities programme and increased opportunities for people to visit local amenities.
“A full programme of activities was now being delivered at the service as well as supporting some people to access local amenities.” from the report
Improved care records
Care records were described as detailed and up to date, helping staff provide more personalised care.
“Care records were detailed and up to date.” from the report
Quality checks missed a window risk
needs fixingAn audit recorded that all windows were safely restricted, but inspectors found one window that was not. The issue was fixed immediately after it was raised.
“However, we saw the window restrictor audit had been signed as all windows had been safely restricted to protect people from falling from height.” from the report
Infection documents were out of date
needs fixingThe infection prevention policy and some COVID-19 risk documents did not match the home's current practice. Managers said they would update them.
“We also identified on inspection that the provider's infection prevention and control policy had not been updated to refer to the COVID-19 virus” from the report
Minor environmental and cream-storage issues
minorInspectors found some minor safety concerns, including topical creams stored unsafely, one window and exposed plasterwork. These were addressed during the inspection.
“During our inspection we identified that some unsafe practices were in place regarding the storage of topical creams.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all window restrictors are safe and working?
- 02Have the infection prevention policy and COVID-19 risk assessment been updated since the inspection?
- 03How are topical creams stored and checked now?
- 04How will you make sure quality audits identify problems before an inspection?
- 05Which activities and community trips are available for someone with my relative's interests and needs?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 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.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found improved environmental safety and infection controls, but this was only a targeted follow-up.
The inspection took place without notice on 8 February 2022. One inspector spoke with the registered manager and two staff, checked window restrictors in 14 rooms, and reviewed risk assessments, safety audits and training records.
The inspection followed a serious injury involving a person living at the home. CQC did not examine what caused that incident because it was still being investigated. Instead, inspectors checked concerns about environmental safety and found no evidence that people were at risk from that concern during this inspection.
Inspectors found that health and safety checks had been reviewed and new window restrictors had been installed. They also found the home was clean, infection control measures were in place, and COVID-19 visiting and vaccination requirements were being followed.
This was a targeted inspection, so the home was not given a new overall rating. The Safe question remains recorded as Requires Improvement from the previous inspection, but that rating was not changed because the full question was not assessed.
Improved environmental safety
The provider had reviewed its health and safety processes and installed window restrictors to reduce the risk of falls from height.
“Where shortfalls were identified action was taken. For example, the provider had installed new window restrictors throughout the care home.” from the report
Risk management
People's individual risks were assessed and care records gave staff guidance on how to manage those risks.
“People's identified risks were assessed, and care records provided staff with guidance on managing people's individual risks” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures for preventing and managing infections, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff safety training
Staff had training covering health and safety, fire safety, moving and handling, and food safety.
“Staff received training to keep people safe. This included training in health and safety, fire safety, moving and handling and food safety.” from the report
Environmental audit not finished
minorThe registered manager was still completing an environmental audit during the inspection. Ask whether this has now been completed and whether it identified any further actions.
“The registered manager was in the process of completing an environmental audit at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the environmental audit now been completed, and did it identify any further safety actions?
- 02What was learned from the serious injury investigation, and what changes were made as a result?
- 03What is being done to improve the previous Requires Improvement rating for Safe?
- 04How often are window restrictors, fire safety equipment and other environmental safety measures checked?
- 05When was the last full inspection, and what were its ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection following a specific incident, focused on environmental safety and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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 Grange Cottage Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Grange Cottage Residential Home →
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Grange Cottage Residential Home →
- February 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.