CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grey Gables (New Milton) Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Grey Gables (New Milton) Limited was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with no concerns identified.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a family member, a healthcare professional, the manager and staff. They observed care and checked care, recruitment and other records.
The home was supporting 22 people, all of whom had dementia. Four people also had a learning disability. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, and supported in line with detailed care plans.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 20 March 2017. Inspectors identified no concerns and planned to inspect again within the usual timeframe for services rated Good.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough suitable staff to support people safely. Medicines were managed consistently, with trained staff and regular checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to support people safely and in line with their needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care was based on detailed assessments and plans. Staff changed support when people's needs changed and took account of their preferences.
“People's care and support were based on individual assessments and care plans which were detailed and comprehensive.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and responded to their emotional and practical needs. They supported dignity, privacy, choice and independence.
“People had positive relationships with staff who treated them with respect and kindness.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could take part in activities suited to their interests, including puzzles, reading, walks and trips to local places. Staff also recorded and met individual communication needs.
“There was a wide range of individual and group activities, including puzzles, crosswords, and reading.” from the report
Strong partnership working
The home worked with healthcare professionals, community teams and a hospice to support people's health and end of life care.
“There was collaborative working with other providers and agencies.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt my relative's care plan and risk assessments if their dementia, mobility, nutrition or communication needs changed?
- 02How would staff support my relative to take part in activities that match their interests and usual routines?
- 03How do you make sure staff understand and meet a person's communication needs, including hearing, sight or learning disability needs?
- 04How would you involve our family in decisions about care, including decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 05How would you plan and provide end of life care, including advance decisions, pain relief and support for the family?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with significant improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 and 2 March 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, safety records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training, good access to health professionals and kind care that respected people's privacy and choices.
The previous inspection in March 2015 found that improvements were needed in quality monitoring and record keeping. This inspection found significant improvements, although some records still needed clearer information and further checking.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff available in communal areas and providing one-to-one support. Staffing levels were reviewed as people's needs changed.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's care, emotional and social support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time, listened to them and respected their privacy, choices and dignity. They offered reassurance when people were anxious or upset.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and ensured their privacy was maintained.” from the report
Good health support
Staff contacted doctors and other health professionals when they were concerned about someone's health. Inspectors found referrals were made promptly.
“Records confirmed that staff were proactive in requesting visits or reviews from health professionals, such as GP's or district nurses, when they had any concerns about people's health.” from the report
Improved management
The home had made significant improvements to quality checks, care planning and record keeping since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOn three occasions, medicine records did not accurately match the stock held. The manager investigated and added extra checks.
“However, we found that medicines records had not been accurately reconciled with the stock held on three occasions.” from the report
Risk information
needs fixingSome new risk records did not clearly state what staff needed to do. The home returned to its previous recording system after inspectors raised this.
“Whilst information about risks had been documented as part of a new recording system, it was not always clear from the records what action should be taken.” from the report
Care records
minorSome care planning information was difficult to follow. The manager reviewed it and made changes during the inspection.
“We discussed some aspects of care planning with the registered manager as some records were not easy to follow.” from the report
Training supervision
minorMost staff had supervision, but it was infrequent for some staff. Staff said they felt supported and could ask for advice.
“We saw records of meetings which confirmed that most staff received supervision although this was infrequent in some cases.” from the report
Limited dining space
minorThe dining room was small for the number of people. On the inspection day, staff helping people eat did not have enough room to sit beside them.
“The dining room was quite small for the number of people, and staff who assisted people to eat did not have room to sit alongside them.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine records match the medicines held?
- 02How are risks recorded now, and how do you make sure staff can clearly see what action to take?
- 03What changes have been made to make care plans easier for staff and families to follow?
- 04How often does each member of staff receive supervision and a review of their work?
- 05Has the dining room or mealtime support changed since inspectors found there was limited space?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key areas, including checks on improvements to record keeping identified at the previous comprehensive inspection; the report gives conflicting visit details, stating both 1 and 2 March and 1 and 3 March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2017 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 Grey Gables (New Milton) Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Grey Gables (New Milton) Limited →
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Grey Gables (New Milton) Limited →
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.