CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grosvenor Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were keeping people safe.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 November 2020 as part of a CQC review of infection prevention and control in care homes. The visit was announced.
They found the home was clean and tidy. Cleaning checklists were used, frequently touched areas were disinfected, and staff used appropriate personal protective equipment. Staff had completed infection control training.
The home had arrangements for visitor screening, hand washing, testing, social distancing and safe admissions. An online system supported visits and video calls, although visits were temporarily paused because of the second national lockdown.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives assurance about infection control at that visit, but it does not provide ratings for the wider quality of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy. A checklist helped staff complete cleaning tasks consistently, including disinfecting frequently touched areas.
“The home was clean and tidy. A housekeeping checklist was followed to ensure all cleaning tasks were consistently completed.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had their temperatures taken and completed a questionnaire. Hand-washing facilities and PPE were available at the entrances.
“Visitors had their temperatures taken and completed a questionnaire before entering the home.” from the report
Staff protection
Staff were wearing appropriate PPE and had completed infection prevention and control training. The manager had also undertaken extra training.
“Staff were wearing appropriate PPE in-line with government guidelines. Staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training.” from the report
Contact with families
The home used online booking for visits and video calls. The manager contacted people who did not use the internet to help arrange visits.
“An online booking system was in place to arrange both in-person visits and virtual calls.” from the report
Activities and social contact
Staffing levels had been increased to support activities and reduce the risk of social isolation.
“The service had increased staffing levels to support with activities in the home and minimise the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Which parts of care, other than infection prevention and control, have been inspected since this report?
- 02What are the current arrangements for in-person visits and video calls?
- 03How do you now support people who do not use the internet to keep in contact with family?
- 04How are activities and staffing arranged now to reduce social isolation?
- 05How do you currently check that cleaning, PPE, testing and infection control training remain up to date?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control; the home was inspected but not rated and the other quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Grosvenor Lodge was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but important gaps in risk management, consent and leadership.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 June 2019. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, recruitment files, incident records, complaints and other management records.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with kindness and dignity, their preferences and life histories were recorded, and they were supported with food, activities, relationships and healthcare.
However, the home did not always identify or manage risks properly. Records and guidance about health conditions, behaviour and healthcare aids were incomplete. Staff did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act when making decisions or using restrictions.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the service was not consistently safe, effective or well-led. Safe, effective and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while caring and responsive were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good in March 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with compassion and dignity. Staff used people's preferred names, respected privacy and encouraged independence.
“People were treated with kindness, care and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life stories, interests and preferences. Staff used this information to support activities and daily choices.
“People's care plans included their life stories, what their childhood was like, where they had worked, their families and interests.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered quickly and recruitment checks were carried out.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered quickly, and staff were able to spend time with people.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could take part in activities and maintain interests and religious connections. Visual aids helped some people understand choices and communicate.
“There were pictorial boards displaying activities on offer at the home.” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
seriousThe home did not always assess or record risks linked to behaviour, diabetes or a stoma. Staff did not always have enough guidance to provide safe and consistent support.
“Risks to people were not always recognised and assessed.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns were missed
seriousA series of incidents involving behaviour that affected other people had not been referred to the local authority as a safeguarding concern until inspectors raised it.
“Referrals to the local authority about safeguarding had not always been made when needed.” from the report
Mental capacity and restrictions
seriousRestrictions were not always recognised, assessed, agreed or reviewed. Best-interest decisions were made without properly involving people or their representatives.
“Staff were not following the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Medicines guidance
needs fixingThere were no written protocols for some medicines prescribed as required. This could make safe decision-making harder for staff who did not know people well.
“There was no guidance, such as protocols, in place when people were prescribed medicines 'as required' (PRN) for pain relief or anxiety relief.” from the report
Weak records and checks
needs fixingThe quality assurance system had not found or corrected several problems. Records of incidents, staff medicines competency and capacity decisions were not always complete or up to date.
“The quality assurance framework had not identified and addressed all areas for improvement identified during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How are you now assessing and recording risks for people with diabetes, stomas or behaviour that may challenge?
- 02What written guidance do staff have for medicines prescribed as required, and how do you check staff competency?
- 03How do you make sure capacity assessments and best-interest decisions involve the person and their representatives?
- 04How do you record, review and report incidents involving behaviour that affects other people?
- 05What action has been completed in response to the three breached regulations, and how do you check that it is working?
This was an inspection of all five key questions; each rating was assessed during the visit, and the previous Good ratings for all five questions had deteriorated in Safe, Effective and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 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.
Every inspection of Grosvenor Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.