CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gregory House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, safe admissions, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were well managed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors found comprehensive COVID-19 policies, regular testing, visitor screening, enough protective equipment and good cleaning arrangements. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, visits and vaccination requirements.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
COVID-19 planning
The home had detailed policies for managing COVID-19 risks, including people who had a positive diagnosis.
“The home had comprehensive policies and procedures to manage any risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Keeping in touch
People and relatives were supported to stay in contact, including through online visits when in-person visits were not possible.
“People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
Testing and screening
Regular testing was in place for people living in the home, staff and visitors. Visitors were screened before entering.
“A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people in the home, staff, and visitors to the home had been implemented.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning
There was enough protective equipment, hand sanitiser was available and staff were observed using protective equipment correctly. Daily cleaning and touch-point cleaning were carried out.
“There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and any visitors to use.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing COVID-19 or other infection risks, and when was your infection prevention policy last updated?
- 02What arrangements are currently in place for visits, including when a visitor cannot enter the home?
- 03How do you check that staff and visitors follow current protective equipment and infection control procedures?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures, and have these affected care or activities?
- 05How do you check vaccination or exemption requirements for staff and visiting professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with some nutritional planning still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 July 2018, followed by a short visit on 30 July 2018. Inspectors met all 17 people living in the home and spoke in depth with six of them. They also reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing, recruitment, training, food, safety records and quality checks.
The inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines management and good safeguarding arrangements. Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs, choices and goals. People were supported to build independence, take part in activities and access health services.
People described staff as kind and helpful. Inspectors saw patient support that respected privacy, dignity and choice. The home was clean, warm and purpose built, and managers had systems for handling complaints and checking quality.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service meeting the regulations and providing a good standard of care at the time of the inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough care and support staff during the day and night, with a trained nurse in charge at all times.
“We judged that there were suitable professionals employed and sufficient care and support staffing levels in place by day and night.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors saw calm, patient support that respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“We also observed kind and patient support being provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, goals and ways to support emotional or behavioural difficulties. Some people had helped write their plans.
“The care plans were detailed and comprehensive.” from the report
Building independence
People were supported to shop, cook, travel, take part in activities and work towards more independent living.
“We saw evidence of people being encouraged to develop interests and activities as individuals with a view to living more independently.” from the report
Good management checks
Managers used audits, meetings, surveys and incident reviews to monitor the service and plan improvements.
“The service had a comprehensive quality monitoring system in place and people were asked their views in a number of different ways.” from the report
Nutritional planning
minorFood was well prepared and special diets were supported, but more complex nutritional planning was not yet complete.
“Nutritional planning was being developed further.” from the report
End of life experience
minorThe team had not yet cared for someone at the end of life. The manager planned to arrange basic training, although some nurses had previous experience and outside support could be accessed.
“This team had not dealt with end of life care but were open to the possibility of caring for a person at this stage.” from the report
Changes after the new provider
minorThe provider had changed and some records and systems were being brought into line with the new organisation gradually.
“The original company who owned the home had been bought out by a new provider and the staff were in the process of assimilating some of their templates.” from the report
- 01How would you meet my relative's particular mental health, learning disability or nursing needs?
- 02What nutritional planning is now in place for people with complex eating or drinking needs?
- 03How do you support people who use non-verbal or specialist communication?
- 04What training and arrangements are now in place for end of life care?
- 05How have the new provider's systems and records been fully introduced since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with a short follow-up visit; inspectors reviewed all residents' care files and also reviewed records for people receiving respite care whom they did not meet. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 2018 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
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 April 2015.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 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.