CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grosvenor Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- There were not always enough staff on duty, although inspectors said staffing levels had started to improve. Risks were generally managed, but some diabetes and catheter care records were not consistent enough.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food and drink, staff had appropriate training, and people were supported to access healthcare. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act and used the least restrictive approach.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives spoke positively about staff, and people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and communication needs. Visiting was encouraged, complaints were dealt with well, and end of life care was described as compassionate.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, accessible management and systems for monitoring quality. Some gaps in daily records and charts had not been found through existing audits, so extra audits were introduced.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement because staffing was not always sufficient.
This was the first inspection under the new provider. It was an unannounced inspection, with visits on 12 and 13 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions, supported to access healthcare and helped to maintain relationships.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. There had not always been enough staff because of recruitment, retention and sickness problems. Staffing had started to improve, but inspectors recommended keeping staffing levels under review. They also found some gaps in risk records, medicine records and PPE use, with some action taken during or after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity. Relatives and people were consistently positive about the staff team's kindness.
“People were treated kindly and with respect. We observed lovely interactions between staff and people throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs and life histories. Staff supported people to make choices wherever possible.
“People's needs were well understood, and care plans were created around individuals' preferences.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were referred to health professionals promptly when needed. Inspectors found that staff worked well with outside professionals.
“People were regularly supported to access appropriate healthcare services. Staff made referrals to professionals in a timely manner.” from the report
Open management
Management welcomed feedback and staff said they could raise concerns. The home also analysed accidents and incidents to look for patterns.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service. The management team were available, accessible and welcomed feedback.” from the report
Staffing shortages
needs fixingThere were not always enough staff because of recruitment, retention and sickness problems. Inspectors recommended that staffing levels should remain under review, although staff said people were kept safe and recruitment was under way.
“There were not always enough staff on duty. The provider had struggled to maintain adequate staffing levels over the previous few months.” from the report
Some risk records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords about diabetes and catheter care were not always robust and consistent. The manager reviewed diabetes plans and added stronger catheter care information after inspectors raised the issue.
“We identified records could be more robust and consistent around risks associated with diabetes and catheter care.” from the report
Medicine follow-up records
minorMedicines were given as prescribed, but staff did not always record whether 'when required' medicines had worked. An extra audit was introduced.
“Staff did not always record whether these medicines had been effective.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
minorThe home had enough PPE, but inspectors saw that it was not always worn appropriately. This was addressed immediately after feedback.
“We observed that staff did not always wear PPE appropriately. The registered manager addressed this immediately upon feedback.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are usually on duty on each shift, including at weekends, and how do you cover sickness or vacancies?
- 02What has changed in staffing levels and staff turnover since the inspection in April 2022?
- 03How do you now check that diabetes and catheter care records contain the right information?
- 04How do you record whether 'when required' medicines have been effective?
- 05What checks make sure staff wear PPE correctly?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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.
Every inspection of Grosvenor Park Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 August 2020.
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Darlington
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 £970 to £1,230 a week. 35 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.