CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gregory House II
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found trained staff, updated risk assessments, safe medicines management, suitable staffing and systems for learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed monthly. Staff supported nutrition and access to healthcare, but oral hygiene assessments were not included in care plans at the time of inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People told inspectors staff were kind and caring. People were involved in their care, treated with dignity and supported to make choices and build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, community access, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, regular audits, staff supervision and an open approach to incidents and feedback. The manager understood reporting and regulatory responsibilities.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with oral hygiene assessments missing from care plans.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 and 27 January 2020. One inspector spoke with six people, a relative and four staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files, accidents, complaints, audits and other records.
People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, caring and available. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control arrangements. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, independence and contact with family and friends.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The report says this was the first inspection since the service was newly registered, although an earlier Good rating was used to help plan the inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and the building was checked for safety.
“People told us they felt very safe living at Gregory House II.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, personal choices and independence were respected.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to manage daily tasks, go out, and prepare for more independent living. One room had been adapted as a small apartment to help people practise independence.
“The registered manager had developed a 'skills for life' document they used to prepare people for life after Gregory House II” from the report
Good links with health services
The home worked with GPs, nurses, social workers and hospitals. Staff arranged appointments and kept healthcare information in care plans.
“The service worked with local GPs, practice nurses, social workers and other health care professionals to ensure people received timely care.” from the report
Learning from incidents and complaints
The management team reviewed incidents and complaints and used them to change practice or provide extra training.
“The service learnt lessons by analysing these incidents.” from the report
Oral hygiene records
needs fixingCare plans did not contain oral hygiene assessments. The manager said this would be put in place immediately, so families should check that it has been completed.
“However, there was no oral hygiene assessments in people's care plans.” from the report
- 01Have oral hygiene assessments now been completed for every person, and how are dental needs recorded and reviewed?
- 02How would you support my relative's specific mental health needs, including recognising triggers and responding when they become distressed?
- 03How would you help my relative build independence, and what goals would you set with them?
- 04How would you support my relative to keep in contact with family, access activities and go out safely?
- 05What would happen if my relative needed end of life care, given that no one was receiving it during the inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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.
Every inspection of Gregory House II
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 2019.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 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.