CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Greta Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control areas where there had been specific concerns. They found testing, protective equipment, social distancing and new visitor procedures, but said audits had been limited in scope.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection controls in place, but said audits had been limited.
This was a targeted inspection on 10 November 2020. It focused on infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes. One inspector visited, spoke with four people and three staff, and reviewed infection control records, policies and audits.
Inspectors found that people and staff had access to regular testing. Staff had equipment to manage infection risks, followed social distancing guidance and introduced new visitor procedures. People said they were happy with their care during the outbreak and were kept informed.
The audits were limited in scope. After the inspection, a more detailed audit was introduced and identified actions were addressed. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a new overall rating or change the previous Good rating published in August 2019.
Testing and outbreak response
People and staff had access to regular testing. Inspectors also noted that staff had taken practical steps during a recent outbreak and kept people informed.
“Staff had been innovative in managing a recent outbreak.” from the report
Infection control equipment
Staff had equipment to manage infection risks and were proactive about social distancing.
“Staff had access to equipment to manage the risks of infection.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home supported people to maintain contact with their relatives during the outbreak.
“People had been supported to keep in touch with their relatives.” from the report
Visitor procedures
New procedures had been put in place to reduce the risk of infection spreading between visitors and the home.
“New procedures were in place for visitors to manage the risks of cross infection.” from the report
Limited audits
needs fixingInspectors found that audits did not cover enough areas. A more detailed audit was introduced after their feedback, with actions identified and addressed.
“Audits were limited in scope. A more detailed audit was introduced following inspection feedback.” from the report
- 01What actions from the more detailed infection control audit are still being monitored?
- 02How often are infection prevention and control audits now completed and reviewed?
- 03How are visitors currently managed to reduce the risk of cross infection?
- 04How are people supported to keep in touch with relatives during an infection outbreak?
- 05What arrangements are in place for regular testing of people and staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control within the Safe question; the previous Good rating was not reviewed and the other questions were not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor medicines recording improvements and fire safety work underway.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 August 2019. Inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff, managers and a health professional, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe care, personalised support and kind relationships between staff and people.
There were some minor medicines recording problems, but management acted immediately to correct them. Fire safety work had also been identified by the fire authority and was being addressed. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's needs and treated them with respect. People and relatives were positive about the care they received.
“People were supported by staff who knew them and their needs well.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were enough staff employed and on duty to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
People were treated as individuals and supported to make choices. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and maintaining people's privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and the good relationships they had with staff impacted positively on their feelings of wellbeing.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose from activities and outings, and family and friends visited regularly. The home also provided varied activities such as singing, arts and crafts and reminiscence sessions.
“People were encouraged to take part in activities and outings of their choice.” from the report
Open management
Managers were approachable and people felt able to raise concerns. The provider used surveys, meetings and quality checks to plan improvements.
“Effective quality assurance system to review areas of the service and to drive improvement were in place.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome medicines records were unclear or incomplete, including a varying dose that was not written on the medicine record. Management corrected the recording shortfalls during the inspection.
“We identified some minor improvements were needed in relation to the recording of medicines.” from the report
Fire safety actions
needs fixingThe fire authority had identified areas needing attention. Managers were taking action, but families may wish to ask what work has since been completed.
“A representative from the fire authority had recently visited the service and had identified some areas of fire safety requiring attention.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorBuilding decoration and facilities were being improved. Inspectors asked managers to give careful thought to making redecoration suitable for people living with dementia.
“careful thought was given to the redecoration to ensure a dementia friendly environment.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicines recording after the inspection, and how are records checked now?
- 02What fire safety issues did the fire authority identify, and have all the required actions been completed?
- 03How has the building been made more dementia friendly since the inspection?
- 04How are people's care plans and preferences reviewed with them and their relatives?
- 05What activities and outings are currently available, and how are people supported to choose whether to join in?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with care and the premises both considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 August 2019 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 Greta Cottage
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not rated
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 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 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.