CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gretton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found sufficient staff, safe recruitment, good medicines management and effective infection control, although some liberty restriction documentation was not up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. The report says staff supported people's health, communication, decision-making and access to specialist health and social care.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors described care as compassionate, empowering and tailored to people's needs, with people's wishes and rights at the centre.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. People were supported to pursue their interests, personalise their rooms, attend activities and make decisions about their lives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had approachable management, effective audits and an open culture. Some care records were not fully up to date, but the issue had been identified and was being addressed.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with some records and communication needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 and 27 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with six people, 10 relatives, 15 staff and four professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and manage distress in personalised ways.
There were some minor shortfalls. Not all documentation relating to restrictions on people's liberty was up to date, and some care records needed updating. The manager acted on these issues during or after the inspection, and inspectors found no negative impact on people.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices, develop their strengths and take part in meaningful daily activities. People were supported to attend appointments and manage medicines as independently as possible.
“Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Personalised support for distress
The home used positive behaviour support plans and worked with people to understand and reduce distress. Inspectors saw communication tools being created to help one person show how they felt.
“The service worked with people to plan for when they experienced periods of distress.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Inspectors found no gaps in medicines administration records and saw that medicines were given on time. Infection prevention measures, cleaning, personal protective equipment and visiting arrangements were also found to be effective.
“We saw that there were no gaps in the medicines administration records (MARs), and people received their medicines on time.” from the report
Positive leadership
The management team promoted a person-centred culture and used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service. People, relatives, staff and professionals gave largely positive feedback.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and standards of the service.” from the report
Liberty restriction records
needs fixingSome documentation relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was not up to date. The manager started a full review straight away, and inspectors found no negative impact on people.
“Some people had restrictions imposed on their liberty through DoLS procedures. We identified not all documentation was up to date.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingAudits found that some care records were not fully up to date. The issue had been discussed with staff and was being addressed.
“We saw recent audits found some care records were not fully up to date, which was discussed in the team meeting and being addressed.” from the report
Family communication
minorMost relatives were happy with communication and their involvement, but two relatives thought some communication could be improved.
“Two relatives told us they thought some areas of communication could be improved, but they remained satisfied with the care and support provided.” from the report
- 01Has the review of all Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards documentation been completed, and are records now up to date?
- 02How do you check that each person's care records remain accurate and current?
- 03What changes have you made to improve communication with relatives?
- 04How are vacant shifts covered while recruitment is ongoing, and how do you ensure agency staff know people's individual needs?
- 05How are positive behaviour support plans reviewed when a person becomes distressed or their needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on whether the home applied the Right support, right care, right culture principles; only Safe and Well-led were separately rated, while the other three questions were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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, December 2020
Gretton House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 November 2020 as part of a coronavirus infection control review. The visit was announced and focused on finding good practice in care homes.
They found safe arrangements for visitors, including temperature checks, health questions, hand sanitiser and masks. Staff had extra infection control training, used protective equipment properly and had enough supplies.
The home used easy-read information to help people understand COVID-19. It also had social distancing measures, enhanced cleaning, separate staff teams and an updated emergency plan.
This was not a full inspection. The home was inspected but not rated, so the report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to follow several safety steps, including temperature checks, a health questionnaire, hand sanitising and wearing a mask. Plans were also being made for a more permanent outdoor visiting structure.
“Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including health professionals and relatives.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had extra training in infection prevention and protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff using it correctly and found enough supplies.
“Staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
Accessible information
Easy-read and picture guides helped people understand COVID-19, testing, protective equipment and social distancing.
“A variety of easy read and picture guides helped people understand about COVID-19 and the changes to their lives because of it.” from the report
Reducing infection spread
The home used a one-way system, separate entrances and exits, enhanced cleaning and separate staff teams. Permanent staff did not work in other care settings.
“Staff worked in four separate core teams which also reduced the risk of cross infection within the staff team.” from the report
Emergency planning
The contingency plan was regularly updated and included practical backup arrangements for emergencies.
“The contingency plan was a practical working document which was regularly updated when anything changed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to reduce infection risks?
- 02How do staff receive training and supplies for protective equipment, and how is correct use checked?
- 03How are people supported to understand changes to visits, testing and infection control in ways they can understand?
- 04How does the home keep its cleaning schedules and emergency plans up to date?
- 05Do staff still work in separate teams and avoid working in other care settings?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the home was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of Gretton House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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.