CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Grove House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines and infection control arrangements. Two oil-filled heaters were removed because they could pose a burn risk if used.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Relatives described poor communication and difficulty contacting managers. Leadership had been inconsistent, there was no registered manager in post, and people who were non-verbal did not always have communication aids.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Grove House is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 January 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about the environment, staffing and management. They observed care, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, suitable safeguarding procedures, safe medicines practices and effective risk management. Heating was working and the home was warm, but two oil-filled heaters were removed because they could cause burns if used.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection. Relatives reported poor communication and difficulty contacting managers. Some people who were non-verbal did not have communication aids, and there was no registered manager in post, although the provider had action plans and a temporary management structure.
Safeguarding
Staff knew people well and understood how to protect them from abuse. Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were in place.
“There were effective safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place.” from the report
Staff availability
Although agency staff were being used for some shifts, inspectors found staff visible and available to meet people's needs. Rotas included time for one-to-one support.
“During our inspection staff were always visible and on hand to meet people's needs and requests.” from the report
Medicines
Staff followed systems for administering, recording and storing medicines. Audits were used to check that medicines were given correctly.
“Regular medicine audits took place to make sure people received the right amount of medicines at the right time.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Managers investigated safety incidents, shared lessons with staff and used meetings to support improvement.
“People received safe care because staff learned from safety alerts and incidents.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives said regular calls had stopped and that it could be difficult to contact the home. The provider had recognised this and included improvements in its action plan.
“Two relatives told us regular weekly calls with managers or their family member had stopped and they sometimes found it hard to make contact with the service.” from the report
Communication aids
needs fixingPeople who were non-verbal did not always have pictures or other tools to help them communicate and make choices. The provider said it was working on this.
“People who were non-verbal did not always have the tools they needed to help them communicate and make choices about their care and support.” from the report
Heater safety
needs fixingTwo oil-filled heaters had no risk assessments. They were not being used and were removed immediately after inspectors raised the concern.
“However, if used, there was a risk of people receiving burns from the high surface temperature.” from the report
- 01How do you now keep relatives informed, and how can families contact managers when they have concerns?
- 02Has a registered manager been appointed, and who is responsible for the home until then?
- 03What pictures, communication aids or other tools are available for people who are non-verbal?
- 04How are agency staff used, and how do you make sure staffing levels do not reduce people's activities or outings?
- 05What checks are now in place to prevent unsafe heaters or similar environmental risks?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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, May 2022
Heathcotes Grove House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and stronger leadership, with daily records still being reviewed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 April 2022. One inspector observed people and staff, spoke with five relatives and five staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Inspectors found that people were safe, had choice and independence, and were supported by staff who understood their communication and needs.
The home had enough staff, used medicines safely, managed infection risks and responded to incidents. Its managers were visible and approachable, and quality checks were effective. Some daily records were still being reviewed to make sure they were meaningful and accurate.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led both improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 6 January 2021. The other three key questions were not rated in this report.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to have control over their lives and encouraged positive risk-taking. They planned for distress and tried to avoid restrictions and restraint.
“Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Communication
Staff understood different ways people communicated, including body language, sounds, Makaton, pictures and symbols.
“People who had individual ways of communicating, using body language, sounds, Makaton (a form of sign language), pictures and symbols could interact comfortably with staff” from the report
Staffing improved
There were more permanent staff and less reliance on agency workers than at the previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff to provide planned one-to-one support.
“There had been big recruitment drive since our last inspection which had been successful.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Staff followed medicine safety systems, reduced some medicines used when needed for behaviour or anxiety, and used effective infection control measures.
“Since our last inspection the service had reduced the amount of 'when needed' medicines that were used to control people's behaviour and anxieties.” from the report
Visible management
Managers worked directly with people, listened to relatives and staff, and used feedback to develop the home.
“Management were visible in the service, approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, family, advocates and other professionals had to say.” from the report
Daily records still being reviewed
minorThe management team was working to improve daily records so they were meaningful and accurately showed the support people received. Ask to see how this work has been completed.
“The management team were working with staff to further review the quality of daily records to ensure they were meaningful and accurately reflected the support people received.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to daily records, and how do you check that they accurately describe the support people receive?
- 02How many permanent staff are now in post, and how often do you use agency staff?
- 03How do you review restraint plans and make sure restraint is only used when other approaches have failed?
- 04How are people and their families involved in increasing activities and community opportunities after the Covid-19 restrictions?
- 05How do you review medicines used for behaviour or anxiety, and what reductions have been made since the inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. 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 Grove House
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2018.
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 Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.