CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grosvenor Park Community Project
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had suitable staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, recruitment checks and medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had induction, training, supervision and support, and worked with health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions and supported them to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and care plans were reviewed with people. Staff supported activities, relationships, communication needs and access to complaints procedures.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager worked directly with staff and was described as approachable. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Grosvenor Park Community Project was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 03 August 2023 and 22 August 2023. One inspector spoke with all five people living at the home, two relatives and staff. They also checked care records, staff files, training, risk assessments, medicines records and management audits.
The inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing levels were suitable, recruitment checks were completed, medicines records were accurate and the home was clean. People received support from staff with suitable training and knowledge.
People said staff treated them with kindness and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care, supported to stay independent and helped to follow their interests. The home had systems for handling complaints, learning from incidents and checking the quality of care.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found good outcomes for people and consistent management. The previous inspection, published on 03 August 2018, was also rated Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to respond to abuse or other risks.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Suitable staffing and recruitment
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs and completed checks before staff started work.
“The provider had enough staff working at the service to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped shape their care plans and received support based on their individual needs, choices and preferences.
“People received care and support that was personalised and responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people's dignity, independence, equality and involvement in decisions about their care.
“People were involved in decisions about their care.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as approachable and encouraged people, relatives and staff to raise issues and suggest improvements.
“People and relatives spoke positively about the management and staff team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's particular mental health needs and monitor changes in their health?
- 02How do you cover staffing when a member of staff is absent at short notice?
- 03How often would my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed with them?
- 04What activities and support would be available to help my relative maintain relationships, independence and personal goals?
- 05How can my relative or family raise a complaint, and how would the home respond?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous inspection ratings were all Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2023 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some guidance needed on medicines given when required.
This was an announced inspection on 4 and 11 June 2018. The inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, staff records, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and improvements in protecting people's money and recording medicines.
People were supported by trained staff who knew their needs and preferences. Care plans were personalised, people were involved in decisions, and the home supported independence, health, activities and complaints.
The previous inspection in August 2016 found two breaches, about financial safeguards and medicines records. These had been improved. Inspectors made one recommendation because instructions for medicines used when needed were not easy for staff to find.
Improved medicines records
Medicines administration records were complete, and the stock checked matched the records. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“Medicine administration record (MAR) sheets were completed correctly. There were no gaps in signatures indicating people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Protection of people's money
The home used locked storage, financial risk assessments, receipts and regular checks to help protect people's money.
“This meant people were protected from the risks of financial abuse and exploitation.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and goals. Staff supported people to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
“Care plans were personalised, contained people's preferences and focussed on goals the person wished to achieve.” from the report
Supportive staff and management
People and staff spoke positively about the management. Staff had regular meetings, training and supervision.
“People spoke positively about the management of the service.” from the report
Instructions for as-needed medicines
needs fixingInstructions about when and how to give medicines used when needed were in care plans and risk assessments, but were not easy to find. Inspectors recommended seeking further guidance on medicines management.
“Guidance about when and how to administer 'pro re nata' (PRN) medicines was contained in people's support plans and risk assessments but was not easily accessible.” from the report
- 01How will staff quickly find the instructions for medicines that are given when needed?
- 02What checks are now used to make sure all medicines are recorded correctly?
- 03How will you support my relative to work towards greater independence and their care plan goals?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 05What support could be arranged if my relative later needed end of life care?
This was an announced inspection of the whole care home, including care, accommodation, records, staffing, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 2018 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 Community Project
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Grosvenor Park Community Project →
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Grosvenor Park Community Project →
- September 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Waltham Forest
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 £1,200 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.