CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grangefield Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm, risks were assessed and medicines were managed safely. Staff answered call bells promptly during the inspection, although some feedback about staffing was mixed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so its previous rating was carried forward. The report says staff supported people within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so its previous rating was carried forward. Inspectors observed staff being kind and compassionate.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so its previous rating was carried forward. The report says care was positive and person centred in practice, although records did not always show this.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality assurance checks did not identify all the issues found by inspectors. Some care plan language was inappropriate, some required CQC notifications had not been made and the current rating was not initially displayed.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care and kind staff, but the home needs to improve its management and records.
Inspectors visited without warning on 27 February 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, risk assessments and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Safe was rated Good. People were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely, risks were reviewed and staff acted on accidents and incidents. Visiting was unrestricted and infection control arrangements were found to be effective.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, as quality checks did not always find problems in records. Some care plan language was not respectful or person centred, and some required notifications had not been sent to CQC. The provider acted promptly when these issues were raised.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in February 2021. The earlier concerns about risk assessments had been addressed.
People felt safe
People described feeling safe and well cared for. Staff knew how to raise safeguarding concerns.
“People described feeling safe and well cared for.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and given safely. Electronic records and staff competency checks helped reduce the risk of errors.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were recorded, reviewed and discussed with staff. The home had improved its response since the previous inspection.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff being kind and compassionate. People and relatives said staff were supportive and approachable.
“We observed staff being kind and compassionate with people.” from the report
Good communication with relatives
Relatives gave positive feedback about communication. The home offered different ways for relatives to give feedback.
“Relatives told us communication was excellent.” from the report
Records were not always respectful
needs fixingSome care plan language was not person centred or respectful. Records did not always reflect the positive care inspectors observed.
“Records were not always person centred and language used was not always respectful.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits covered many areas but did not identify some issues found during the inspection, including inappropriate language in care plans.
“Quality assurance processes were not always effective.” from the report
Required notifications were missed
seriousSome notifications that the law required the provider to send to CQC had not been made. The manager said they would ensure future notifications were submitted correctly.
“Not all required notifications had been made to CQC as required by law.” from the report
Agency staff communication
needs fixingSome people experienced confusion because of a language barrier with agency staff. The home said it tried to use the same agency workers so they could get to know residents.
“There was sometimes a language barrier with agency staff, which had resulted in some confusion.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure care plans use respectful, person-centred language?
- 02How do you now check that your audits identify problems in care records?
- 03How do you make sure all events that must be notified to CQC are reported on time?
- 04How do you prevent communication problems when agency staff are working?
- 05What improvements have been made since this inspection, and how are you checking that they are lasting?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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, January 2022
Grangefield Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 13 January 2022. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control, including how the home would prevent or manage an outbreak.
They found safe arrangements for visitors and professionals. These included testing, vaccination checks, hand sanitiser and protective clothing. There were plentiful supplies of protective equipment, regular cleaning records and up-to-date COVID-19 policies.
Staff had infection control training and training in using protective equipment. The home had plans for isolation, zoning, testing and managing staff pressures.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas inspectors usually consider.
Visitor safety
The home had checks and safety measures for professionals visiting the service, including testing, vaccination checks, hand sanitising and protective equipment.
“Safe arrangements were in place for professionals visiting the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were plentiful supplies of gloves, masks and aprons, with equipment stations around the home and near rooms where people were isolating.
“There were plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the designated setting” from the report
Cleaning and infection control
Inspectors saw records of regular cleaning and disinfection, including cleaning frequently touched surfaces. Policies and risk assessments were up to date.
“We saw various cleaning and disinfection records which included regular high touch point cleaning” from the report
Staff training and testing
Staff took part in regular testing and had completed infection control training, including training in how to put on and remove protective equipment.
“All staff had completed training in relation to infection control” from the report
Further development identified
minorThe provider was signposted to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain in detail what needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach” from the report
- 01What has changed in your infection prevention and control arrangements since the inspection on 13 January 2022?
- 02How often are staff and visiting professionals tested, and how do you check vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 03How do you make sure staff continue to use protective equipment correctly after refresher training?
- 04How would you manage a new admission who needs to isolate, and how would you separate people if there was an outbreak?
- 05What did you do after being signposted to resources to develop your infection control approach?
This was an announced, focused inspection of infection prevention and control; the home was inspected but not rated and the other quality areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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 Grangefield Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Grangefield Residential Care Home →
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Grangefield Residential Care Home →
- February 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 2013.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.