CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grimston House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, risks, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were reviewed so the home could reduce the chance of them happening again.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in and care was delivered in line with their care plans. Staff had relevant training and people were supported with food, healthcare appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and friendly. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found that people were supported to keep their dignity, independence, choices and contact with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal and included people's backgrounds, preferences, communication needs and interests. People could take part in activities, raise complaints and receive information in suitable formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an effective management team, regular meetings and feedback systems. Managers completed regular audits and acted on any shortfalls they found.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Grimston House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. The inspector visited on 17 June 2019 and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, quality checks and the home itself. They also spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good overall. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and had enough suitably checked and trained staff.
People were involved in their care and treated with dignity and respect. Their care plans reflected their choices, needs and interests. Inspectors also found good support with food, healthcare, activities, communication and complaints.
The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was published on 26 October 2016. The report says the home had effective quality checks and continued to monitor and improve its service.
Safe risk management
Risk assessments gave staff clear instructions about individual risks, including falls, nutrition, mobility and specific health needs.
“Risk assessments continued to be detailed and guided staff what to do to minimise each identified risk and keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors saw staff speaking positively with people and supporting their dignity.
“Staff were positive and encouraging when they interacted with people. Staff spoke kindly with people and laughed and joked with people throughout the day.” from the report
Personal care planning
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, interests and what might make them happy or anxious. Families and people were involved in reviewing them.
“Care plans were individual. They contained personal information about people, such as important people in their lives, where they had lived and worked, as well as their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could choose group or one-to-one activities and were encouraged to do tasks for themselves where possible.
“People were supported to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
Quality oversight
Managers and the provider carried out regular audits. Actions identified through these checks were recorded and followed through.
“There continued to be effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's individual risks, including falls, nutrition, mobility or specific health conditions?
- 02How would you support my relative's preferred activities, independence, religion, cultural needs and contact with family?
- 03How would you meet my relative's communication needs, including providing information in a format they can understand?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in developing and reviewing their care plan?
- 05How are medicines, incidents and any changes in health monitored and communicated to families?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home and care provided both examined; all ratings were given at this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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, October 2016
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some improvements still needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 September 2016. One inspector spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and the management team. The inspector also observed care, medicines rounds and staff interactions, and checked care records, risk assessments, recruitment and training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, detailed care plans, support with food and healthcare, and care that respected people's dignity and choices.
The report also noted some worn and outdated decoration, including areas that were not dementia-friendly. There was no formal on-call system, some parts of the day had little structured activity, and the home agreed to improve how minor concerns were recorded. The office filing system also needed improvement.
Safety planning
Care plans included detailed risk assessments and instructions for safe moving, transfers and falls prevention. Inspectors saw staff following these instructions.
“Having robust risk assessments in place meant that staff were able to implement consistent control measures to keep people using the service safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and needs. Inspectors observed kind interactions and saw people's dignity and privacy being respected.
“During the inspection we observed the interactions between people and staff and saw that these were kind, respectful and appropriately based on the needs and wishes of the person.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans covered people's routines, relationships, health, mobility, nutrition and activities. They were described as current and reflected people's needs.
“People's care plans were detailed, up to date and reflective of their needs at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and found that staff had suitable induction, training, supervision and support.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, meetings and surveys to identify improvements and act on issues found.
“There was a robust quality monitoring system in place for identifying improvements that needed to be made.” from the report
Worn and dated decoration
minorSome areas needed modernisation and redecoration. Inspectors said parts of the home were not always suitable for people living with dementia.
“Some of the décor had become worn and tired over time, and was not always in keeping with best practice in dementia care.” from the report
No formal emergency on-call system
needs fixingInspectors raised the lack of a formal on-call arrangement for emergencies. Management said that the manager or team leader would be available.
“We highlighted the lack of a formal on-call system in case of emergencies.” from the report
Some quiet periods without structured activities
minorThere was a weekly activity timetable, but inspectors also saw periods when there was little structured activity.
“While we did observe some periods during the day where there did not appear to be much structured activity in the service” from the report
Minor concerns not recorded
needs fixingThe home had a complaints process, but had not been recording smaller concerns or grumbles that were resolved informally. Management agreed to introduce a system.
“The registered manager agreed that this would support the evidencing of outcomes in relation to people's concerns and would implement such a system going forward to support the complaints process.” from the report
Office filing system
minorThe office was described as somewhat disorganised and needed a stronger filing system. A new electronic system was being introduced.
“We noted that the office environment was a little chaotic and would benefit from a more robust filing system.” from the report
- 01Have all the planned redecoration and modernisation works been completed, especially changes intended to make the home more suitable for people living with dementia?
- 02What formal on-call arrangement is now in place for emergencies outside normal management hours?
- 03How many structured activities are offered each day, and how are residents' individual interests reflected in the timetable?
- 04How are minor concerns and informal complaints recorded, followed up and reviewed?
- 05How are food preferences, alternatives and the way meals are served discussed with residents?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staffing, medicines, records, complaints and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2016 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 House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.