CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grimston Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Grimston Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, but some cleaning, maintenance and risk assessment work was needed.
This was a targeted inspection on 3 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found good practice in the use of protective equipment, hand washing, testing and visitor screening. Visits were being arranged in line with government guidance, and the home had plans for managing an outbreak.
Some areas, especially ground-floor bathrooms, needed more cleaning or maintenance. Audits had not always identified or dealt with these issues, and risk assessments were not consistently in place for people living at the home or staff. The home took immediate action during and after the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for the five key questions.
Protective equipment
Staff were seen using protective equipment properly. Supplies were plentiful and visitors could also access them.
“Staff had good infection control practices and were observed to wear PPE appropriately.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in protective equipment and hand washing, and their competence was checked regularly.
“Staff had undertaken training and their competency around the use of PPE and hand washing was regularly assessed.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Testing was completed in line with guidance, and the manager knew what action to take if someone developed COVID-19 symptoms.
“Staff and resident testing was completed in line with current guidance and the registered manager was clear as to what actions they would take if a person displayed symptoms of COVID-19.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were screened and visits were arranged in line with government guidance. The home tried to help people stay in contact with family and friends.
“Visits were facilitated in line with government guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and maintenance
needs fixingMost of the home was clean, but some areas, particularly ground-floor bathrooms, needed further cleaning or maintenance. Audits had not consistently identified or addressed these issues.
“We observed that, whilst most of the service was clean, some areas required further cleaning or maintenance, particularly in the ground floor bathrooms.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingRisk assessments were not consistently in place for people living at the home or staff. Immediate action was taken during and after the inspection.
“Risk assessments were not consistently in place for people who used the service or staff.” from the report
- 01What cleaning and maintenance work was completed in the ground-floor bathrooms after the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that cleaning and maintenance problems are identified and dealt with promptly?
- 03Are risk assessments now in place and regularly reviewed for every person living at the home and for staff?
- 04What measures are in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 05How are visits, visitor screening and testing arrangements managed now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor issues noted.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 December 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people using the service, visitors and staff. They observed the home and dining experience and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines practice, good understanding of people's needs and respectful care.
People had choices about food, activities and their care. Their health needs were monitored, and staff worked with other professionals. Inspectors noted that some bathroom areas had been used to store non-bathing items, but this was removed during the inspection.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 9 June 2017. This means inspectors found the service met the required standards at the time of this visit, but it does not mean that every aspect was perfect.
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff handling medicines had their competence checked.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and offering emotional reassurance. People said staff were kind and caring.
“We observed staff treating people respectfully providing them with dignified care and support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records were detailed and reflected the care being provided. People and their representatives were involved in care reviews.
“People received person-centred care and were involved in care planning; staff had a detailed understanding of their needs and what was important to them.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied social activities and were encouraged to maintain relationships and community connections.
“People were supported to enjoy a range of social activities.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found effective communication, high staff morale and systems to check and improve the service.
“The service was well run. It was welcoming and friendly; people were treated with respect and staff acted professionally.” from the report
Bathroom storage
minorSome bathrooms were being used to store items unrelated to bathing. The home removed these items during the inspection.
“Some bathroom areas were used for interim storage of non-bathing items. This was removed at the inspection.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople did not all give positive feedback about the food, although they confirmed there was a choice of menus.
“People gave us mixed feedback about the food provided but confirmed they had a choice of menus to choose from.” from the report
Occasional waiting for staff
minorAlthough inspectors found staffing levels sufficient, one person said they sometimes had to wait for staff.
“Seem to be enough [staff], you do have to wait sometimes.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure bathrooms are used only for their intended purpose and remain clear?
- 02How do you respond when people give mixed feedback about the food?
- 03How do you monitor and reduce waiting times when people need staff help?
- 04How is dementia training reflected in the daily care of residents living with dementia?
- 05How do you support residents to achieve individual life goals and maintain community links?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall rating and each question rating assessed during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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 Grimston Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of York
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. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.