CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Grays Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe staffing and recruitment, safe medicines procedures, infection-control arrangements and systems for learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and health conditions. Staff had relevant training, people received support with food and healthcare, and the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, staff supervision, meetings and feedback systems. The new manager had oversight of the service and was working with professionals and the provider on improvement.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with a new manager and one environmental risk fixed during the visit.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 5 June 2023, as part of inspection activity between 1 and 12 June. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management systems.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, supported by trained staff and given their medicines safely. Care plans were personalised, healthcare needs were followed up, and consent arrangements followed the law.
The home was also found to have effective checks on care quality and safety. At the visit there was no registered manager in post, but a new manager had started one week earlier and had applied to register. Some bedroom cupboards were not fixed to the wall, creating a potential risk, but these were fixed during the inspection.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills, and staff knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“There were enough staff to support people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, health needs and guidance for staff about daily support and distress.
“Care and support plans were personalised and reflected a good understanding of people's needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home made referrals when people's health changed and kept relatives updated about appointments and wellbeing.
“The provider communicated well with other professionals and made timely referrals when people needed additional support” from the report
Consent and choice
Inspectors found that people were encouraged to make their own decisions, including when a person changed their mind about a vaccination.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings, feedback and partnership working to review care and identify improvements.
“There was an effective quality audit system including a medicine audit which correlated to medicine records.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. A new manager had been in post for one week and had applied to register, but the application was still being assessed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Bedroom cupboard safety
minorSome bedroom cupboards were not fixed to the wall and could have fallen. The maintenance team fixed them during the inspection.
“some of the bedroom cupboards were not fixed to the wall which meant there was a potential risk of the cupboard falling.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager's application to become registered been approved, and who is responsible for the home while it is being assessed?
- 02How do you check that bedroom furniture and other equipment remain securely fixed and safe?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's healthcare needs and changes in health are recorded and shared with the right professionals and family members?
- 04How do you record and review my relative's consent and any decisions made in their best interests?
- 05What training and competency checks will staff have before supporting my relative with medicines, mobility or other complex needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and were not given new ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 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, February 2022
Grays Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and COVID-19 visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home had measures for checking visitors, testing and isolating people, using protective equipment and managing outbreaks. Inspectors were assured that these arrangements met the relevant guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors had their temperatures checked and were asked for evidence of a same-day negative lateral flow test. Testing was also available at the home.
“The provider was following best practice guidance to prevent visitors to the home spreading COVID-19 infection.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors observed staff using gloves, masks and aprons during care and other duties.
“We observed staff using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including gloves, face mask and apron when providing care and when undertaking all duties within the units.” from the report
Visiting options
The home kept nominated essential care givers and named visitors informed. It also provided virtual visits and screened, ventilated visiting areas during outbreaks.
“The provider had arrangements for visitors to meet with people virtually through video conferencing and physically in visiting areas” from the report
Testing and vaccination records
The provider kept records of staff and people's vaccination status and test results. Staff testing and vaccination arrangements were described to inspectors.
“The provider maintained a comprehensive record of all staff and people's vaccine status and test results.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control, testing and vaccination arrangements are in place now?
- 02How would visits be arranged if there were an outbreak, and how would essential care givers be supported?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures linked to sickness or COVID-19, and could these affect my relative's care?
- 04How are new admissions tested and supported during any isolation period?
- 05How do you prevent staff working across different units from spreading infection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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 Grays Court
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.