CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Grosvenor House Care Home
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and mealtime arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked four care records and reviewed staffing, training, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received suitable care and had access to healthcare, activities and support at the end of life.
The home had improved since the previous inspection on 4 October 2016, when it was rated Requires Improvement. The earlier concerns had been addressed. The home also provides care in people's own homes, but nobody was using that part of the service, so it was not assessed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly, supportive interactions. People were encouraged to make choices and keep their privacy and independence.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff consulted people about how they wanted to be cared for. Care plans were reviewed to reflect changing needs and wishes.
“We found that people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Activities and interests
People were supported to enjoy hobbies, games, music and social events. The home also recognised birthdays and supported community events.
“People told us that they were offered the opportunity to pursue their hobbies and interests and to enjoy taking part in a range of social activities.” from the report
Improved management
The home had addressed concerns from the previous inspection. Its quality checks, staff handovers and feedback arrangements supported ongoing improvements.
“At the present inspection we found the concerns we had previously raised had been addressed.” from the report
Medicine storage records
needs fixingA suitable record was not always made to show that some medicines were stored at the correct temperature. The manager said this would be addressed, and inspectors saw improvement by the end of the visit.
“A suitable record had not always been created to show that some medicines were stored at the correct temperature.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingThe employment histories for two new care staff were not fully detailed. This reduced the home's ability to decide what background checks were needed, although several checks had been completed.
“The registered persons had not obtained a fully detailed account of their employment history.” from the report
Mealtime support
minorSome people arrived late for lunch and one staff member supported two people to eat at once. Inspectors said this reduced the shared dining experience and made support less personal.
“Some people were only starting their meal when other people sitting at the same table had finished dining.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check the temperature of stored medicines?
- 02What changes have you made to ensure every new staff member has a complete employment history and the right background checks?
- 03How do you make sure people are brought to meals on time?
- 04How do you ensure people who need help eating receive one-to-one attention?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or wishes change?
This was an overall inspection of the care home and all five questions were rated Good; the registered home care service was not assessed because nobody was receiving it. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines, consent, emotional support and quality checks were not consistently safe or effective.
The unannounced inspection took place on 4 October 2016. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, training records, audits and medicines records.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind. The home provided healthcare support, activities and help to maintain relationships. However, inspectors found that medicines were not always given safely, some people were not supported well enough at mealtimes, and staff did not always respond to emotional or communication needs.
The home was rated Good for Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. This means the service was not consistently meeting the expected standard and needed to make improvements.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People who used the service told us they felt safe living at the home and had confidence in the staff.” from the report
Healthcare support
People had access to GPs, district nurses and specialist healthcare professionals. Staff had information about specific health needs.
“We found that people who used the service had access to local and specialist healthcare services and received on-going healthcare support from staff.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities, outings and religious services. Relatives were welcomed and supported to remain involved.
“People were encouraged to enjoy a range of social activities.” from the report
Respectful practical care
Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and preferred names during care.
“We saw that when providing care staff were kind and considerate” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousTwo people's medicines had been left with them, and one person's medicines remained beside their plate for over an hour. Risk assessments and some medicines information were incomplete.
“Medicines were not consistently administered safely.” from the report
Consent and restraint records
seriousThe records did not clearly show whether a person had consented to equipment such as bed rails and a lap belt, or whether a best-interests assessment was needed.
“There was a risk they were being restrained inappropriately.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingSome people waited a long time for food, and some could not cut up their meat or ask for help. This meant people did not always receive the support they needed to eat well.
“We also observed that a number of people struggled to eat their meat as it was not cut up and they did not have the utensils available to cut the meat up.” from the report
Emotional support
needs fixingStaff were often busy with practical tasks and did not always reassure people, respond to attempts to communicate or spend time talking with them.
“Staff did not always respond to people's emotional needs.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified issues found by inspectors, including incomplete medicines identification sheets and gaps in risk assessments.
“However the audit process had not identified issues which we found during our inspection” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure medicines are never left with people unless there is a safe, documented plan?
- 02How do you check that medicines records contain people's names, dates of birth, allergies and clear PRN instructions?
- 03How do you assess and record consent or best-interests decisions for bed rails, lap belts and other safety equipment?
- 04How do staff make sure people who cannot communicate easily receive help with meals and other requests?
- 05How do you make sure staff have enough time to provide emotional support and meaningful conversation?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care observations, records, medicines, training and audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 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 Grosvenor House Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.